Wage Slavery

[thatsummer]

I'm not going to waste scrolling space quoting your whole bit.

1. Bertrand Russell. Nuff said.

2. My mother and sister often argue with me about the whole 1% thing, and how if everyone worked their butts off, they have just as good a chance of being rich as anyone else.

I then drop the bomb on them that only 1% of the population can be the top 1%. There HAS to be a bottom 10%, a bottom 20%. You can't make 1.1% of the population, the top 1%.

The point is, in capitalism, somebody is always going to get screwed, because somebody is always going to be the top of the totem pole (contrary to popular saying, the lowest totem on the totem pole is the one which commands the most respect).

3. Human beings are still primitive in more ways than we care to admit. We handle change better than most creatures, but we still dislike it at the core. We can watch videos of basejumpers on youtube from the comfort of home and tell ourselves "Oh I would love to do that!", but there's a reason most of us don't.

We like comfort. A ripple in the herd affects the whole herd, and before we know it, the whole herd is panicked. So we avoid ripples.

I have a problem with #2. People are NOT getting screwed. People are getting paid what they deserve. That is the whole point of capitalism, market allocation of resources. It is however human nature to whine. If you think you are better that the amount you are paid.... Prove it.

Slave wage is not getting paid some low amount. It is the abuse of the value of fear to be paid less than market value.

 

[MEDICaustik]

I have a problem with #2. People are NOT getting screwed. People are getting paid what they deserve. That is the whole point of capitalism, market allocation of resources. It is however human nature to whine. If you think you are better that the amount you are paid.... Prove it.

Slave wage is not getting paid some low amount. It is the abuse of the value of fear to be paid less than market value.

Right, NFL quarterbacks deserve $2,000,000 a year, and high school teachers $50,000 a year. That's exactly what everyone deserves.

 

[thatsummer]

Right, NFL quarterbacks deserve $2,000,000 a year, and high school teachers $50,000 a year. That's exactly what everyone deserves.

Do you watch football?
Do you watch school teachers?......

How many teachers are there?.... Millions
How many NFL quarterbacks are there?.... Maybe a hundred active at any given time.

Its not about your values. Its about the markets' value.

 

[MEDICaustik]

Do you watch football?
Do you watch school teachers?......

How many teachers are there?.... Millions
How many NFL quarterbacks are there?.... Maybe a hundred active at any given time.

Its not about your values. Its about the markets' value.

Market value isn't an indication of what is deserved.

My point was that for there to be a top 1%, there has to be a lower 99%. For there to be a top 99%, there has to be a bottom 1%.

In capitalism, somebody will always get the shaft.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Market value isn't an indication of what is deserved.

Ok; what constitutes someone being deserving?

 

[thatsummer]

Market value isn't an indication of what is deserved.

My point was that for there to be a top 1%, there has to be a lower 99%. For there to be a top 99%, there has to be a bottom 1%.

In capitalism, somebody will always get the shaft.

Is that the shaft though? Think about the time dedicated to being a NFL quarterback. Think about the sacrifices made to become a CEO or to own your own business. These highly paid individuals work hard. A lot harder than I want to work.

Are there isolated cases when someone makes it big with little effort? Yes, but you cant consider those, and it is definitely not a majority.

Free-time isn't a shaft, it is an undervalued luxury.

 

[Darby]

Ok; what constitutes someone being deserving?

And here we go again... I once heard someone say that Your time and effort and labor, and all that, is worth exactly as much as you are willing to receive in return for it. This means that if you build a chair, and you put all the time and effort into building it, and you sell it for a price, you are saying when you sell it "this is what it's combined worth is to me, after all the labor and materials go into it."

This system for valuing your own worth only works when you are working for yourself. Correction, it doesn't really work even then, because you can still be forced into a corner by customers lacking the demand for your "high" priced item.

If you are working in the system, also primarily being employed by others, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, because when you say the labor i'm putting into this is worth $100, but they'll only pay you $80, then your choices become $80, or $0 (or something less than $80). It's true that perhaps you need to reevaluate how much the time to make a chair is worth, you say, "well considering they will only pay me $80 a chair, rather than $100, maybe $80 for this chair really is the value in the current market."

Basically, the current system breeds a kind of unhappiness and resentment because people are selling themselves for less than they think they are worth. This is done by repeatedly telling them "you're not worth as much as you think you are." So we start to believe it. Then we see people living in the 1% and think "why are they worth so much? what did they do that they are worth so much more than I am?"

SORRY, VERY UNFINISHED THOUGHT, but I'm going outside for a bit, will finish later.

 

[thatsummer]

Right, NFL quarterbacks deserve $2,000,000 a year, and high school teachers $50,000 a year. That's exactly what everyone deserves.

BTW, school teachers have a pretty cushiony job. All the holidays off, winter break, spring break! summer break!!!! I mean come on!

 

[Philosophyking87]

Market value isn't an indication of what is deserved.

Agreed 100%.

In fact, one of my earlier posts actually touched up on this issue.
When you're in a system filled with people predominantly concerned with "profit gain," when most of them tend to value practical goods over the others (like philosophy, poetry, and art) -- as the practical goods tend to be most profitable --you'll end up with "demand" largely centered around particular goods over others.

Thus, when a particular good or service is "valued" through the market above another, we tend to say that it's somehow "deserving." Yet this is clearly bogus. Market value does not determine what is deserved, per se; market value only determines what people incidentally happen to value (i.e. desire or wish to spend their money on).

Someone could spend their whole life struggling to write the perfect play, symphony, or philosophical theory, only to find very few people value such things. In such a hypothetical scenario, would we say, "The person is getting what they deserve?" Clearly not. They spent years engaging in creative labor only to find that the market does not value such services. Conversely, suppose someone spends their off-time writing some workout tips for fun and then happens to publish the material just out of curiosity. Then, to this person's surprise, they find everyone's been looking for some new workout tips to stay in shape. Would this person deserve the potential profits they gain from a few workout tips they wrote for fun in their free time? It's hard to see how we can call this "deserving" in comparison to someone who spends years slaving away over some other good/service.

Moreover, it's very clear that what the "market values" tends to vary from culture to culture. Particular cultures value particular traits/characteristics, just as different families prefer certain friends, just as particular communities reward and punish particular behavior. We all know this; cultural anthropology has taught us enough to know these differences. And thus, when someone "makes it big" in one culture, can we really so easily presume that it's due to the person's "hard work" and they deserve it? Or, is it the very value-system of the particular potential consumers who merely happen to determine whose services are profitable and whose are not?

Thus, a problem:

1. Can a free market ever produce prices based on truly "deserving" values? In other words, can prices ever reflect a more philosophical understanding of one good's value in comparison to another, in terms of effort and work rather than what people "just so happen" to desire/value?

2. If capitalism is inherently limited in this fashion (such that market prices cannot naturally determine what goods are "deserving" according to any particular price), is there any way we might be able to actually allocate resources in some alternative fashion, such that the random whims of any consumer's values are avoided? Is there another "system" we might be able to use instead?

And here we go again... I once heard someone say that Your time and effort and labor, and all that, is worth exactly as much as you are willing to receive in return for it. This means that if you build a chair, and you put all the time and effort into building it, and you sell it for a price, you are saying when you sell it "this is what it's combined worth is to me, after all the labor and materials go into it."

This system for valuing your own worth only works when you are working for yourself. Correction, it doesn't really work even then, because you can still be forced into a corner by customers lacking the demand for your "high" priced item.

If you are working in the system, also primarily being employed by others, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, because when you say the labor i'm putting into this is worth $100, but they'll only pay you $80, then your choices become $80, or $0 (or something less than $80). It's true that perhaps you need to reevaluate how much the time to make a chair is worth, you say, "well considering they will only pay me $80 a chair, rather than $100, maybe $80 for this chair really is the value in the current market."

Basically, the current system breeds a kind of unhappiness and resentment because people are selling themselves for less than they think they are worth. This is done by repeatedly telling them "you're not worth as much as you think you are." So we start to believe it. Then we see people living in the 1% and think "why are they worth so much? what did they do that they are worth so much more than I am?"

SORRY, VERY UNFINISHED THOUGHT, but I'm going outside for a bit, will finish later.

Exactly. We are often subjected to the natural whims of other people's values.

Let's imagine a system where people's natural social prejudices/preferences/values determind who gets a job and who does not, and how much any particular person gets paid for any particular job. Let's also suppose the population is primarily Asian, with a few minorities thrown in, such as Anglos and Hispanic. Now let's also suppose the Asians are the "dominant group/ethnicity" holding all the power, while the Anglos and Hispanics are "subordinate group/ethnicity." The Asians believe the Anglos and Hispanics are "inferior" ethnicities and treat them as such (such that Anglos and Hispanics can only hold inferior jobs where they are paid much less than the Asians). They have to scrape poop, handle babies, do dishes and other home chores, and personally fan a giant feather in front of their Asian masters all day.

Would anyone say this system is "fair"? More importantly, would anyone say this system is "just"? If not, why not? Is it that people are naturally subjected to the natural whims of other people's values?

If I can produce chairs but not oranges, yet someone else can produce oranges but not chairs, and the entire population of the system in which I operate prefers oranges to chairs, can I make a living? Should I merely produce an alternative good? What if I am best at producing chairs, and not so good at producing oranges? In fact, let's suppose making oranges is, rather than like second-nature, a somewhat grueling task that I find entirely foreign to my natural strengths? Is not my ability to produce a particular good rendered null, if indeed the trend of the times is such that people do not desire it? Is my ability to produce a good any less significant than the other guy's ability? Is an orange worth more than a chair? Why? Just because the population desires oranges over chairs? Doesn't that seem a little arbitrary???

What truly determines if one person's abilities are considered "deserving" of a particular amount of "compensation" ultimately lies in the very random values people happen to hold.

Case in point: I buy philosophy books. I enjoy listening to audio tapes about philosophy. I enjoy poetry and have a fair amount of poetry books. I also enjoy art, appreciate art, have art books, and would buy paintings had I the money to collect nice pieces. Suppose society were filled predominantly with people like me, and instead, those people who truly preferred practical goods were in the minority. Suppose practical goods weren't valued as highly as they are in today's world. Would my philosophical inclination hinder or help me? Clearly, I'd likely find many ways to prosper and flourish in a system in which my natural talents/inclinations were highly valued. One can also easily imagine that in such a hypothetical system, those people who were made for practical jobs would likely be pissed off as hell, because it'd be very hard for them to find work in order to make a living, and their creative limitations would likely render them impoverished, in a creative society's wage-slave dilemma.

So clearly, there is something a bit odd about going about the meeting of all our needs through mere market values/prices, when indeed they merely allow the natural values people hold (which are clearly not in equilibrium) to determine the quality and status of people's very lives. And despite the fact that modern people are shouting for joy about the free market, I - in response to this reality - imagine alternative systems in which alternative mechanics, less arbitrary and dependent upon the random whims of the people, truly determine prices and allocate work/labor on a much more rational basis, where some form of logical judgment/deliberation or even "formula" calculates (even if in a sense) the most reasonable and fair distribution in order to allow people to produce enough goods in the most efficient manner (i.e., according to their strengths) while also benefiting relatively equally from the fruits of such labor (except where there is clearly good reason against it).

I do not think this is impossible, just not yet discovered. In order to escape from the nasty ills of a market-determined price/value system, we must start thinking of alternatives.

Alternatively, the free market may be the best system possible. In such a case, there are other options. One is clearly to redistribute income, at the very least (among other options). Any other thoughts?

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. Thomas A. Edison

New things are only created without unnecessary boundaries.
Innovate!

 

[MEDICaustik]

BTW, school teachers have a pretty cushiony job. All the holidays off, winter break, spring break! summer break!!!! I mean come on!

I was using them as an example. I'll pull the firefighter card then. Not a very cushy job. On average though, they make less than teachers.

You are missing my point. Sure in theory, it seems like capitalism works so the people who work the hardest reach the top, and those who don't stay at the bottom.

It isn't the case. For every Steve Jobs, there are several million people who worked hard and didn't make it.

I hate when some clown like Herman Cain comes along and says "If you're not rich you have nobody to blame but yourself." What ignorance.

This is a simple math puzzle. If the entire amount of income in the world = 100%, and 10% of the population acquires 30% of the income, that leaves 70% for 90% of the people.

In other words, if one person at a party of twenty people takes 1/4th of a pie, then not everyone else can have 1/4th. Somebody in that chain is going to get 1/100th.

In capitalism (run rampant the way it has), somebody is always going to get more than they need, while the people at the bottom get less than they need.

That's my point. You can't argue that everyone in the world can be rich. If everyone were rich, nobody would be rich.

 

[thatsummer]

I was using them as an example. I'll pull the firefighter card then. Not a very cushy job. On average though, they make less than teachers.

You are missing my point. Sure in theory, it seems like capitalism works so the people who work the hardest reach the top, and those who don't stay at the bottom.

It isn't the case. For every Steve Jobs, there are several million people who worked hard and didn't make it.

I hate when some clown like Herman Cain comes along and says "If you're not rich you have nobody to blame but yourself." What ignorance.

This is a simple math puzzle. If the entire amount of income in the world = 100%, and 10% of the population acquires 30% of the income, that leaves 70% for 90% of the people.

In other words, if one person at a party of twenty people takes 1/4th of a pie, then not everyone else can have 1/4th. Somebody in that chain is going to get 1/100th.

In capitalism (run rampant the way it has), somebody is always going to get more than they need, while the people at the bottom get less than they need.

That's my point. You can't argue that everyone in the world can be rich. If everyone were rich, nobody would be rich.

Fair enough. You are missing my point. I know it isn't perfect, but it works for the most part. I am just saying our system is mostly right, not perfect, but mostly right. I agree, there will always be people at the tail ends, and I think we have solutions for those people. For instance, inflation, inheritance tax, scaling income tax, medicare, food stamps, and other welfare programs.

And central planning does incentives people to buy things that are valuable but not valued enough by the market. Like tax breaks. That's all federal taxes are. An incentive system to guild society. For example, tuition tax breaks, ect.

 

[MEDICaustik]

Fair enough. You are missing my point. I know it isn't perfect, but it works for the most part. I am just saying our system is mostly right, not perfect, but mostly right. I agree, there will always be people at the tail ends, and I think we have solutions for those people. For instance, inflation, inheritance tax, scaling income tax, medicare, food stamps, and other welfare programs.

And central planning does incentives people to buy things that are valuable but not valued enough by the market. Like tax breaks. That's all federal taxes are. An incentive system to guild society. For example, tuition tax breaks, ect.

The degree to which it works is highly subjective.

Sure, it seems pretty stable, but, in my opinion.. 1000 years from now, capitalism will be scoffed at as a primitive thing. No society that is going to survive in the long term would operate on a system that separates people and causes class warfare.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

And here we go again... I once heard someone say that Your time and effort and labor, and all that, is worth exactly as much as you are willing to receive in return for it. This means that if you build a chair, and you put all the time and effort into building it, and you sell it for a price, you are saying when you sell it "this is what it's combined worth is to me, after all the labor and materials go into it."

This understanding of exchange is incorrect. The reason why you would construct a chair and engage exchange is to attempt to receive a return greater than your subjective valuation of costs involved in the process. If the values were anticipated as equal, there is no reason to engage in such action.

The worth or value of something to you can only be known post hoc.

This system for valuing your own worth only works when you are working for yourself. Correction, it doesn't really work even then, because you can still be forced into a corner by customers lacking the demand for your "high" priced item.

So consumers should be forced to purchase what you produce because you believe it worth more than what they're willing to pay? What about the consumer's determination of the worth of your product? Does your valuation somehow supersede others' valuations? Does the mere fact of you existing grants you special rights?

If you are working in the system, also primarily being employed by others, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, because when you say the labor i'm putting into this is worth $100, but they'll only pay you $80, then your choices become $80, or $0 (or something less than $80). It's true that perhaps you need to reevaluate how much the time to make a chair is worth, you say, "well considering they will only pay me $80 a chair, rather than $100, maybe $80 for this chair really is the value in the current market."

Value is subjective. There is no such thing as objective valuation. If people are willing to purchase the chair at $80, it is based on their subjective valuations.

Your anticipations of worth vis a vis value does matter you because it is information you base your decisions on. If you don't think engaging in transactions with others is worth it, don't engage.

Basically, the current system breeds a kind of unhappiness and resentment because people are selling themselves for less than they think they are worth. This is done by repeatedly telling them "you're not worth as much as you think you are." So we start to believe it. Then we see people living in the 1% and think "why are they worth so much? what did they do that they are worth so much more than I am?"

One would hope that as people mature that will also develop some emotional maturity. The emotional maturity to understand that envy does not create a right. The emotional maturity to seek knowledge to seek reason rather than vilify others because they just so happen to be a point of data in a statistical category.

Then we see people living in the 1% and think "why are they worth so much? what did they do that they are worth so much more than I am?"

Do you ask yourself this question regularly?

The answer is that the decent ones have worked for it.

 

[Darby]

@Philosophyking
I'm not going to quote all that, primarily because I do agree with what you say (partly because you were agreeing with me), and also that it's quite long. I do think however that we do have a system that gauges value of items and labor in a way that is although not ideal, exactly what you would expect, which is supply and demand. The problem I see is when certain items are withheld to increase the value relative to demand, and it creates an unnatural imbalance in the system.

There are more problems worth discussing, but this is one that comes to mind. I am also curious what your proposed ways of guaging prices would be.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Alternatively, the free market may be the best system possible. In such a case, there are other options. One is clearly to redistribute income, at the very least (among other options). Any other thoughts?

I am glad you have stated this clearly and concisely. The avocation of parasitism. I know your nature.

 

[MEDICaustik]

I am glad you have stated this clearly and concisely. The avocation of parasitism. I know your nature.

It's all in your viewpoint. I see the upper classes as the parasites; they are reaping the benefits of the labor by their employees and lower class.

The dismissal of any challenge of capitalism by claiming any alternative is, of course, as absurd as becoming parasites. I know YOUR nature.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I am glad you have stated this clearly and concisely. The avocation of parasitism. I know your nature.

You speak as if capitalism does not outright encourage parasitism.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It's all in your viewpoint. I see the upper classes as the parasites; they are reaping the benefits of the labor by their employees and lower class.

Those who are wealthy and reap benefits from voluntary interactions are parasites. Where less wealthy people reaping benefits from voluntary interactions are not? Though, both categories engage in the same actions. Unless you can explain how being wealthy is parasitical, your viewpoint is flawed. Secondly, a parasite is by definition something that benefits and another's expense. This is not happening. Ergo, both categories of people are not.

The dismissal of any challenge of capitalism by claiming any alternative is, of course, as absurd as becoming parasites. I know YOUR nature.

So far you have not put a challenge forward. You have merely complained about statistical differences.

You speak as if capitalism does not outright encourage parasitism.

You have an open floor. Define capitalism and outline the argument about how capitalism outright encourages parasitism.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I was using them as an example. I'll pull the firefighter card then. Not a very cushy job. On average though, they make less than teachers.

I already know your point, but firefighters are also government employees (usually), and so are paid through taxation. So people are sort of obligated to pay for those services, whether they want them or not.

I would just stick to something like a gifted poet who struggles to make rent. The only difference between his efforts and those of the football player are that people highly value football, and so the football player's work is much more valued, therefore will sell for a higher "market price."

 

[Philosophyking87]

I hate when some clown like Herman Cain comes along and says "If you're not rich you have nobody to blame but yourself." What ignorance.

Here's another ignorant gem that I heard about:

"It's not your fault if you're born in the gutter but it is your fault if you die there."

That's my point. You can't argue that everyone in the world can be rich. If everyone were rich, nobody would be rich.

Yup. It's like thinking you have a fair chance of beating the casinos in Vegas, when they're extremely improbable. Yet this doesn't stop people from trying, compelled by the mere "possibility." It's also just like the lottery. These people would be better off standing outside during thunderstorms, waiting to be struck by lightning.

So again, the silly notion that "It COULD be you if you work hard enough," is -- logically speaking (as I've just taken a logic course recently) -- what is known as "non-argumentative persuasion." Specifically, they are known "Weasel words."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word


This sort of nonsense, just like subliminal messages in advertisements, tends to persuade people by giving them a ridiculous impression that merely seems to be plausible, when in fact it's nothing more than a giant trap.

The reality is, just like those "you could lose UP TO 15 lbs on our system" commercials, it's highly improbable that the "up to" and "could" stuff is actually applicable to most of the persons out there. lmfao

Good stuff.

 

[Philosophyking87]

The degree to which it works is highly subjective.

Sure, it seems pretty stable, but, in my opinion.. 1000 years from now, capitalism will be scoffed at as a primitive thing. No society that is going to survive in the long term would operate on a system that separates people and causes class warfare.

Yeah, this sort of captures my views on the "long-term" as well.

I am glad you have stated this clearly and concisely. The avocation of parasitism. I know your nature.

If "deserved" compensation for particular forms of labor is not guaranteed by a free market, I fail to see how it's truly "parasitism." Unless of course you have a very good answer as to why we should believe it true that any particular market values indeed do reflect the true "deserved value" of any labor.

Why should a football player receive 2,000,000 a year, while a brilliant poet struggles to find enough readers for his works? If indeed there is a dilemma here, then I would see some form of "balancing" as minimal means of trying to rectify the situation, even if slightly. So please explain the philosophical foundation upon your claim of parasitism rests. If hard work doesn't necessarily separate people of different salaries, and of course cultural values themselves can determine market prices, how can we say one person is a parasite, while another isn't, if the person with the higher income has, in a sense, potentially landed in such a position due to a number of factors that just so happened to be in his/her favor?

I sense an incredibly inflamed, and rather weak, notion of "self-made acquisition" which I'm sure I can leave a few dents in (and in fact, I've already attacked it on several fronts). You're essentially dealing with a budding "communitarian," just as a heads up. The Harvard philosophy professor Michael Sandel (a well known communitarian) has made many fine points I think are worth sharing here (if you indeed decide to take this rather questionable route).

You can watch his "Justice" lectures for free on youtube and various learning sites (if you have the time/will). It's really good stuff concerning the very important topics with which we find ourselves now engaged.

http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do-302/

As a little taste of my ultimate point against the claim that "If one is completely self-made, one is, therefore, absolutely deserving of one's acquisitions in sum," I say this. If it were not for the very community upon which any successful person relies their entire lives -- the clothes they wear, the police safety, the houses they slept in, the water they drunk that arrived to their home thanks to many hours of other people's labor, the very social cooperation which occurs in every community and society -- it's unlikely such a "successful person" would actually have been in such a position to truly make it to any particular position in society (be it a CEO, a manager, or just a guy at McDonald's who is glad not to be working in the heat). Thus, it's thanks to the very community -- all those little people at the bottom of the totem pole who largely create the support upon which successful people emerge -- that are truly responsible for any successful people's position. Without the very community and the many sacrifices some people make to keep it going, there would not have been every single series of conditions which causally led from one to another to help such a successful person arrive at the final position they did. Thus, it's unlikely any successful person can truly take "full credit" for anything they achieve (not to mention the fact that most successful people have talents they did not earn, but instead were merely born with).

At no point, therefore, can I see -- as a semi-communitarian thinker -- how someone can truly defend the notion that "I earned it!" Maybe in some small sense, but from the big picture, no one really earns anything in any absolute sense. And thus, I see nothing wrong with redistribution of income, and the other various ideas which most individualists immediately brand as "parasitism" at face value.

It's all in your viewpoint. I see the upper classes as the parasites; they are reaping the benefits of the labor by their employees and lower class.

Agreed. And I intend to make an argument for this.
Essentially, we must look at the idea of the "social contract" to truly make sense of this particular dilemma -- of who the actual parasites are.

You speak as if capitalism does not outright encourage parasitism.

Good point.
Many people resort to crime in reaction to the bad social conditions caused by free market mechanics.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369441/

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

If "deserved" compensation for particular forms of labor is not guaranteed by a free market, I fail to see how it's truly "parasitism." Unless of course you have a very good answer as to why we should believe it true that any particular market values indeed do reflect the true "deserved value" of any labor.

I hope you do know that a price on the market is determined by the aggregation of subjective valuations of individuals. In other terms the intersection of the demand schedule with the supply schedule.

“Deserved value”, whatever that means, does not enter the equation.

Why should a football player receive 2,000,000 a year, while a brilliant poet struggles to find enough readers for his works? If indeed there is a dilemma here, then I would see some form of "balancing" as minimal means of trying to rectify the situation, even if slightly. So please explain the philosophical foundation upon your claim of parasitism rests. If hard work doesn't necessarily separate people of different salaries, and of course cultural values themselves can determine market prices, how can we say one person is a parasite, while another isn't, if the person with the higher income has, in a sense, potentially landed in such a position due to a number of factors that just so happened to be in his/her favor?

The reason why that football player receives 2000000 a year is because people are willing to pay him that much. They value his services to that extent. Conversely, the reason why supposedly brilliant poet struggles is because people do not value his services to the extent where they will engage in exchange with the poet in such a way it leads to the poet not struggling. Are you starting to get it?

The definition of a parasite is an organism that sustains its existence at the detriment of another organism. Redistributing wealth, causing to detriment to one person to sustain another’s existence because you/they will not accept the consequences of their actions, fulfils the requirements of the definition. Hence, parasitism.

I sense an incredibly inflamed, and rather weak, notion of "self-made acquisition" which I'm sure I can leave a few dents in (and in fact, I've already attacked it on several fronts). You're essentially dealing with a budding "communitarian," just as a heads up. The Harvard philosophy professor Michael Sandel (a well known communitarian) has made many fine points I think are worth sharing here (if you indeed decide to take this rather questionable route).

You can watch his "Justice" lectures for free on youtube and various learning sites (if you have the time/will). It's really good stuff concerning the very important topics with which we find ourselves now engaged.

http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do-302/

I watched the lecture series a couple years ago.

As a little taste of my ultimate point against the claim that "If one is completely self-made, one is, therefore, absolutely deserving of one's acquisitions in sum," I say this. If it were not for the very community upon which any successful person relies their entire lives -- the clothes they wear, the police safety, the houses they slept in, the water they drunk that arrived to their home thanks to many hours of other people's labor, the very social cooperation which occurs in every community and society -- it's unlikely such a "successful person" would actually have been in such a position to truly make it to any particular position in society (be it a CEO, a manager, or just a guy at McDonald's who is glad not to be working in the heat). Thus, it's thanks to the very community -- all those little people at the bottom of the totem pole who largely create the support upon which successful people emerge -- that are truly responsible for any successful people's position. Without the very community and the many sacrifices some people make to keep it going, there would not have been every single series of conditions which causally led from one to another to help such a successful person arrive at the final position they did. Thus, it's unlikely any successful person can truly take "full credit" for anything they achieve (not to mention the fact that most successful people have talents they did not earn, but instead were merely born with).

This is not new information. We live in a market economy vis a vis division of labour. If people did not cooperate with one another, it would not be so. For a person to be wealthy, people in society must have valued their services. Otherwise, if people did not value the services, they would not have exchanged and the person would not be wealthy.

People can take credit for wealth derived from what they produced because they are the ones who acted; used their cognitive faculties to produce a good or service that others just so happened to value.

Why do you suppose your mere existence grants you special rights to determine the worth/value of others or good and services that supersedes the decision making faculties of others? From my perception you’re an emotional immature control freak that uses his cognitive faculties to make up fallacious reasons in order convince others to let you control them.

 

[thatsummer]

The degree to which it works is highly subjective.

Sure, it seems pretty stable, but, in my opinion.. 1000 years from now, capitalism will be scoffed at as a primitive thing. No society that is going to survive in the long term would operate on a system that separates people and causes class warfare.

You're changing the subject. I didnt say capitalism is the best solution for all of time. I dont even think it is the best solution for all societies. but to say capitalism is wrong... thats a stretch.

 

[Felan]

In my opinion ...

The most fundamental problem with any system is that every system suffers entropy. Lifeforms, economic systems, governments, relationships, software, and so on all decay over time unless you just freeze it into immobility but what use is that.

When you say the system is broke, it isn't the system rather just the natural decay of it. Some systems are more resitant to that rot than others and capitalism is the best I've seen. You can apply fixes to it but eventually the weight of the fixes exceeds its capacity to bear and the system will collapse.

As to the inequality there is considerable evidence that excessive inequality within a society is unhealthy for both ends of the society. But then flat equality isn't healthy either.

As to how to fix the problem, capitalism has mechanisms in it that allow for such problems to get fixed. Applying a fix adds to the weight of crap that burdens it and will eventually overwhelm it. Rather the real fix that contributes the greatest to its well-being is to use the mechanisms in place. If the product is too much, don't buy it. If your product is undervalued, don't sell it. If you are underpaid then look for someone who will pay you more. Own a business and create 4 wage ranks (1x, 2x, 3x, and 4x) and pay (wages and bonuses) people distributed by their pay rank and not individually negotiated contracts.

I can't control what the 99% (of which I'm a part of) does. I can only control what I do. In any system I will try to do the best for myself I can, which isn't strictly about money. I'm not keen on saying this person lives too well and that person not well enough, because to be quite honest I'm not that person and should have the right to decide that for them. I think we have a responsibility to create opportunity and to seek opportunity. If I am mired down in my wage slavery, ultimately I have only myself to blame for that. I like that I have the chance to succeed or fail by my own actions. Trying to force the system to be fair is just breaking it quicker.

 

[Da Blob]

What bothers me the most about economic issues, is that the numbers never add up or that they always add up, depending on one's subjective POV.

What is the most efficient model for a human economy?
One that utilizes humans efficiently as slaves to the system, taking into account human nature as it is and not some liberal dream of what human nature should be or could be, given the ideal environment inhabited by individuals with the ideal genetic makeup.

But wait! Isn't this liberal dream the basic premise of Huxley's Brave New World? An ideal economy based upon Henry Ford's automated assembly line, an ideal environment created by technological innovation and ideal genetically-modified humans.

I am sorry, but I can't help but see the economy as just another institution built by the Oppressors to maintain the status quo and their power over the human resources of civilization. Pfft! everyone is talking about Keynesian economics and trying to ignore Thomas Robert Malthus and the implicit social Darwinism of reality, competition to control the supply of diminishing resources. Good Grief! One could almost make the case that every war fought in the last half century was for economic control over the single commodity that is oil.

Capitalism is great in that it recognizes the primitive state of human nature. Capitalism rewards greed, oppression, exploitation, use of propaganda, bribery etc. The very definition of 'free market' is freedom from all morality and ethics, as manifested by government regulation. Our current economy is dominated by huge inhumane, immoral monsters, the Great Machines of Multi-national Corporations. I think it rather futile to talk about the economy, for it is the corporations, existing outside of any human jurisdiction, that have the ultimate say in the matter...

 

[thatsummer]

...The very definition of 'free market' is freedom from all morality and ethics, as manifested by government regulation...

Huh?

...
Capitalism is great in that it recognizes the primitive state of human nature. Capitalism rewards greed, oppression, exploitation, use of propaganda, bribery etc. The very definition of 'free market' is freedom from all morality and ethics, as manifested by government regulation. Our current economy is dominated by huge inhumane, immoral monsters, the Great Machines of Multi-national Corporations. I think it rather futile to talk about the economy, for it is the corporations, existing outside of any human jurisdiction, that have the ultimate say in the matter...

I call bullshit.
Do you know why capitalism rewards greed, oppression, exploitation, etc... because PEOPLE reward greed, oppression, exploitation...
Take money out of the situation for a moment and think about any sizable social system. People use people. People spread rumors about people. People lie. People guilt-trip people. Go sit and watch a bunch of kids. They know nothing, and they still exhibit these behaviors. That is the main theme of the book Lord of the Flies.

Rich people do unethical things, but guess what? Poor people do unethical things too! They just don't make the headlines.

 

[thatsummer]

Huh?

I call bullshit.
Do you know why capitalism rewards greed, oppression, exploitation, etc... because PEOPLE reward greed, oppression, exploitation...
Take money out of the situation for a moment and think about any sizable social system. People use people. People spread rumors about people. People lie. People guilt-trip people. Go sit and watch a bunch of kids. They know nothing, and they still exhibit these behaviors. That is the main theme of the book Lord of the Flies.

Rich people do unethical things, but guess what? Poor people do unethical things too! They just don't make the headlines.

I guess what I am saying is that it recognizes people's values, which is what it is suppose to do. You cant force people to recognize high level values. But at the same time, we do. Think about natural disasters. It is quite amazing to see people be selfless for a while. Or charity and volunteer work. I promise you that, as a society, we do so much more of that than we did historically. The IRS actually accounts for that. I'll find the data.

 

[thatsummer]

Internal Revenue Service Charitable Statistics
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/charitablestats/index.html

Bureau of Labor Statistics Time Spent Volunteering 2011 Report
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics Time Spent Volunteering Achieve
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm#VOLUN

Giving USA Foundation 2009 Report
http://www.givingusa.org/press_releases/gusa/GivingReaches300billion.pdf

 

[Da Blob]

I guess what I am saying is that it recognizes people's values, which is what it is suppose to do. You cant force people to recognize high level values. But at the same time, we do. Think about natural disasters. It is quite amazing to see people be selfless for a while. Or charity and volunteer work. I promise you that, as a society, we do so much more of that than we did historically. The IRS actually accounts for that. I'll find the data.

That is rather my point, Capitalism is more aligned with human nature, rich and poor human nature, than any utopian system dreamed of by academicians.

The rich, as a generalization, give very little to charity, compared to religious minorities. Accumulating wealth is their religion and they defend their booty religiously, in most cases.

Hmmm, It is rather odd that it is only the few philanthropists amongst the rich that ever make the headlines, I wonder why that is...?

 

[thatsummer]

That is rather my point, Capitalism is more aligned with human nature, rich and poor human nature, than any utopian system dreamed of by academicians.

The rich, as a generalization, give very little to charity, compared to religious minorities. Accumulating wealth is their religion and they defend their booty religiously, in most cases.

Hmmm, It is rather odd that it is only the few philanthropists amongst the rich that ever make the headlines, I wonder why that is...?

Shrug
I've never heard capitalism defined as utopia. I am sure even people at the top of the capitalism game dont think it is utopia. I dont even know what utopia is. Somehow I think it is unique to an individual.

 

[Guess]

Hmmm. I missed this discussion before. Nice topic

Does man exist for a functional "efficient" economy, or does a functional "efficient" economy exist for man?

This post alone was worth reading the whole thread...


I may add something soon.

 

[Guess]

Right, NFL quarterbacks deserve $2,000,000 a year, and high school teachers $50,000 a year. That's exactly what everyone deserves.

Ok; what constitutes someone being deserving?

Let me try to spice up things, here.

What someone deserves? It is certainly subjective, but given a few assumptions, one can easily arrive at some conclusions.

First let me ask. Two people are given a pie as a reward by a third person. How much each deserve? For those who answer anything other than half/half don't keep reading. Find a psychologist.

So, one possibility about what someone deserves. Assumptions:
1) It is a market economy. Consumer pays what he wants.
2) The added value of the worker is defined as the extra profit generated by that worker + its wage.
3) half/half of the added value is what each part deserves.

Assuming $12000 tuition fee per semester ( I just got this value from the Internet), and 30 kids on a class, one arrives at $60,000 per class per month. If we assume $40,000 are spent on school on things like rent and other professionals, the added value by the teacher is $20,000.

If half/half is fair. The teacher should get $10,000 a month, or $120,000 a year, i.e., much more than the $50000 that the market pays.

This example shows that, under these assumptions, the market does not pay what someone deserves, but rather what someone accepts.
But why is that the case? The reason is that a single teacher has very little bargaining power. For the reason, over the reason people created unions, which increase their bargaining power (as a class). But some brilliant economists/politicians think unions simply hinder the economy and it is better to have some laws that weakens unions, so that employers can explore their employees without any impediment.

With the same calculation I could easily imagine the NFL quarterback "deserves" $3,000,000 . Why is the difference not as large as in the teacher case? Because the NFL quarterback has a better bargaining power than a teacher.

I am not necessarily advocating someone should earn $3,000,000, but even under market assumptions it is easy to conclude that people with little bargaining power end up forced to work at much lower wage than that they are valued or deserve.

Please note that basically my example entailed that the fair definition was based on a peer to peer relationship of school owner and school teacher. In reality, this is a one to many relationship, i.e., the owner can get profits from many teachers. So half/half can actually be defined to be unfair towards the teachers. Even in that case the conclusion was that the division of profits can be unfair. Imagine if I try to make some similar example, where 1 person gets 1 share of the pie...
Thus, the term wage slavery.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Let me try to spice up things, here.

2) The added value of the worker is defined as the extra profit generated by that worker + its wage.

Totally, 100%, incorrect. Your assumption is not derived from reality.

The price of a worker's service is determined by supply and demand for that worker's service. Demand for this factor of production is manifested by economic calculation under the assumption of anticipated market clearing price of the particular good or service.

---

You're whole analysis is irrelevant. Your started off with the normative statement that deserving is 50/50. Well, why?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This example shows that, under these assumptions, the market does not pay what someone deserves, but rather what someone accepts.
But why is that the case?

Because your assumptions don't correspond to reality.

People can not simply demand whatever price they feel like from another person. The opposite would be like someone stating that you must pay them $10000 to clean a toilet in your house when you don't value that service at that price. Totally illogical.

The reason is that a single teacher has very little bargaining power. For the reason, over the reason people created unions, which increase their bargaining power (as a class). But some brilliant economists/politicians think unions simply hinder the economy and it is better to have some laws that weakens unions, so that employers can explore their employees without any impediment.

Well, when unions kill strike breakers, burn down factories and the police stand idly by and do nothing, like they did during the great depression, of course people will start to view unions negatively.

When unions cut of their noses to despite their faces, like go on strike to get higher wages when a company can't simply afford it and during the mean time causing the company to go bankrupt, of course people are going to view unions negatively.

 

[Guess]

Totally, 100%, incorrect. Your assumption is not derived from reality.

The price of a worker's service is determined by supply and demand for that worker's service. Demand for this factor of production is manifested by economic calculation under the assumption of anticipated market clearing price of the particular good or service.

---

You're whole analysis is irrelevant. Your started off with the normative statement that deserving is 50/50. Well, why?

Where did I say price of the worker? I said added value

Making more concrete example of what I meant.
The school has 10 classes. It has to decide whether or not it will create the 11th class.
A = profit given by 10 classes + 10 teachers wage + other costs with 10 classes
B = profit given by 11 classes + 11 teachers wage + other costs with 11 classes

I was suggesting to use B-A as the added value by the extra teacher (maybe surplus would be a better word). So let's say B-A is the surplus. And one potential definition of fairness would be to divide B-A equally.

I started at 50/50 because it is psichologically intuitive (and also what people choses mostly on reality, even if they are given the chance to decide the split alone - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109001358 - I hope you have access to this, to see how psychology and economy may differ in characterizing human behavior).

I tried to be as unfair as possible towards the teacher, not considering that the extra class also leads to further capital investment which is for the benefit of the owner, not to the teacher (i could have analyzed the difference in revenue instead of profit).

If I said 10% to the owner, 90% for the teachers could be more fair because the owner is just one and the teachers are so many, you probably would give up the argument right way, so I considered peer to peer relationship (and 50/50 share). And yet the outcome was the one described.

Do you need real life examples? $9 for someone who sells $278?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397421,00.asp

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Where did I say price of the worker? I said added value

"Added value" simply makes no sense.

Making more concrete example of what I meant.
The school has 10 classes. It has to decide whether or not it will create the 11th class.
A = profit given by 10 classes + 10 teachers wage + other costs with 10 classes
B = profit given by 11 classes + 11 teachers wage + other costs with 11 classes

I was suggesting to use B-A as the added value by the extra teacher (maybe surplus would be a better word). So let's say B-A is the surplus. And one potential definition of fairness would be to divide B-A equally.

I started at 50/50 because it is psichologically intuitive (and also what people choses mostly on reality, even if they are given the chance to decide the split alone - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109001358 - I hope you have access to this, to see how psychology and economy may differ in characterizing human behavior).

Brilliant. Then when the firm makes a loss, the deficit must be fronted equally by all those involved.

Wage labor already benefits a great deal from their arrangement. For one, they don't have to bear the risk of investment. Secondly, they derive an income before the goods they produce are even sold at the market. Even if a product flops and does not reap any income, the wage laborers still get paid, the investors do not.

Do you need real life examples? $9 for someone who sells $278?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397421,00.asp

Look mate, there is no objective way you, or anyone for that matter, can determine what is fair and unfair. Just as they is no objective standard of value. In your hypothetical you merely appealed to a normative statement. Furthermore, if there was an objective standard, people would already be conforming to that standard.

If people don't think they're fairly compensated for their services rendered, they can simply quit their job.

 

[Guess]

Look mate, there is no objective way you, or anyone for that matter, can determine what is fair and unfair. Just as they is no objective standard of value.

What someone deserves? It is certainly subjective, but given a few assumptions, one can easily arrive at some conclusions.

Do you actually read what we write or just randomly rebate? I started my whole idea by pointing out that the whole topic is subjective and yet you criticize exactly that...

Yet, I pointed out that empirical scientific studies do point that a considerable number of people expect fairness even when it is detrimental to themselves. (If you did not read, that´s a very interesting paper). Being subjective or not does not impede to measure statistically what are people´s expectation.

Brilliant. Then when the firm makes a loss, the deficit must be fronted equally by all those involved.

Perhaps this could be more fair than the real situation of companies which have reduced profitability: mass layoffs.

Wage labor already benefits a great deal from their arrangement. For one, they don't have to bear the risk of investment. Secondly, they derive an income before the goods they produce are even sold at the market. Even if a product flops and does not reap any income, the wage laborers still get paid, the investors do not.

I´d agree with those statements can be true on a startup, but not on a multi-millionaire business with constant revenue flow. Established business do not present those risks. The startups do. That´s why one needs to be a little crazy to quit a job and create a startup. But the deal investors get out of established firms is much better than any job agreement.

Well, when unions kill strike breakers, burn down factories and the police stand idly by and do nothing, like they did during the great depression, of course people will start to view unions negatively.

I was talking about reduction of power of unions since the 80s, in some countries. Other countries remain with strong unions and they do not look like that.

When unions cut of their noses to despite their faces, like go on strike to get higher wages when a company can't simply afford it and during the mean time causing the company to go bankrupt, of course people are going to view unions negatively.

Right... As walmart simply can not afford to pay more, but costco pays 40% more...
That´s no way related to the fact that walmart has anti-union practices...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Do you actually read what we write or just randomly rebate? I started my whole idea by pointing out that the whole topic is subjective and yet you criticize exactly that...

You're using assumptions that don't correspond to reality to create a hypothetical in which the conclusions you try to apply to reality? Right...I'm sorry but this is merely appealing to the absurd.

I in response, I state fact. This fact renders your entire argument irrelevant. Questions of fairness are irrelevant. Wage slavery is nonsense.

Yet, I pointed out that empirical scientific studies do point that a considerable number of people expect fairness. (If you did not read, that´s a very interesting paper)

Your scientific studies are irrelevant. If their was an objective standard of "fairness" people would already being conforming to it because they would have knowledge of it.

Perhaps this could be more fair than the real situation of companies which have reduced profitability: mass layoffs.

Those people laid off still, in nearly all circumstances, have been paid for the work that they have completed or services rendered. They suffer an inconvenience in finding alternative work but they're not saddled with fronting large sums of money to the business's creditors.

I´d agree with those statements can be true on a startup, but not on a multi-millionaire business with constant revenue flow. Established business do not present those risks. The startups do. That´s why one needs to be a little crazy to quit a job and create a startup. But the deal investors get out of established firms is much better than any job agreement.

You don't understand how most large firms operate. They operate on a basis of borrowing money from banks to fund capital investment. They have no intentions of ever paying back the loan. Paying back the loan is simply an impossibility. They intent to merely service the interest. Every couple of years they refinance. This arrangement enables firms to make those thin margins of profit. Very high risk. All it takes is some additional sovereign risk to destroy the firm.

Investors do not actually get much out of the arrangement. They may never receive a return. Ergo, loosing what they have invested. At best they yield the market rate of return at 5%. Anything beyond this would be a miracle.

Now simply working, that's easy. The difficult task is being an entrepreneur. Being a person that has the ability of combining the factors of production to serve consumer demand. You must have ambition, leadership, be able to manage and problem solve, know finance and above all else have creative faculties. Entrepreneurs bear the risk. Worker they hire as being a factor of production, only bear the risk of possibly having to find another job is the business fails. Comparatively, it is insane to leave the almost risk free environment of wage labor to be an entrepreneur and or investor.

Right... As walmart simply can not afford to pay more, but costco pays 40% more...
That´s no way related to the fact that walmart has anti-union practices...

Ergo, people should quite their jobs at walmart and go work at costco.

 

[Guess]

I in response, I state fact.
Your scientific studies are irrelevant.

Funny... You state facts. Scientific studies are irrelevant... After reading this, I don´t know how I still find motivation to reply you... But somehow I still feel compelled to do it.

Those people laid off still, in nearly all circumstances, have been paid for the work that they have completed or services rendered. They suffer an inconvenience in finding alternative work but they're not saddled with fronting large sums of money to the business's creditors.

When wage slaves are lay off, they may not find another job, not being able to pay rent, not able to buy food. I read that Zuckerberg lost 5 billion this week. Is there anything he would like to buy that he could buy last week but he can not buy now? Is this the risk he is bearing? Lose a huge amount of imaginary money he accumulated with little effort? And that makes absolute no difference in his consumer lifestyle?

You don't understand how most large firms operate. They operate on a basis of borrowing money from banks to fund capital investment. They have no intentions of ever paying back the loan. Paying back the loan is simply an impossibility. They intent to merely service the interest. Every couple of years they refinance. This arrangement enables firms to make those thin margins of profit. Very high risk. All it takes is some additional sovereign risk to destroy the firm.

Then you should blame the sick unregulated financial system. That in the end will destroy these large firms for nothing. Do you call this anomaly you just described as sane capital accumulation?

It is more like a Pharaoh (the financial system) enslaving everyone else to accumulate capital (make a pyramid). The slaves still praise the Pharaoh because the pyramid is always getting higher. But he chose to build the pyramid in place that will certainly fall down (not payable loan).

Comparatively, it is insane to leave the almost risk free environment of wage labor to be an entrepreneur and or investor.

Entrepreneur does have an important role and bears risk. But investors should not be equated to entrepreneurs. By the contrary, they enslave the entrepreneurs as well using their financial power. But wage labor being risk free and easy??? Oh boy... (face palm)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Funny... You state facts. Scientific studies are irrelevant... After reading this, I don´t know how I still find motivation to reply you... But somehow I still feel compelled to do it.

Not day goes by where I read at least one published journal paper which is not base on nonsense. A common example are people producing statistical models with low relative absolute error and high R^2 values but they have not engaged in validating the models. Without validating the models there is not way to deduce whether or not a type 1 error has been committed. Ergo, their papers are moot, worthless, etc.

I read hilarious paper the other day were these two economists tried to use statistics to prove that the minimum wage decreases unemployment. I was motivated to contact them to get their data. In response they sent me back a correction to their paper stating that there was a statistically insignificant increase in unemployment at 95% confidence interval. Well shit, a 95% confidence interval allows for a large amount of deviation.

Now the paper that you linked is pretty much irrelevant. If there is a standard of fairness people wish to conform to, they will do so. Now, their conclusions did point out something interesting:

The present findings illustrate the importance of fairness norms even in financial negotiations between anonymous parties (cf. [Kahneman et al., 1986a] and [Kahneman et al., 1986b]). In that sense they resonate with other studies (e.g., Fehr & Rockenbach, 2003) that show that in interdependence situations, initial non-selfish acts stand a good chance of being positively reciprocated, which is ultimately to the advantage of both parties.

Ignore their perverse definitions of selfish and non-selfish. There is a reason why people in engage in transactions whereby they both mutually benefit. The reason is that this ensures sound relationships with this party in the future. If you no that person does not provide good deals, you will strive to interact with this person. Ergo, there is a desired standard and people conform to it.

Now what does this tell us about the level of compensation of goods and services? The market will trend to an equilibrium whereby there will be repeat interactions. The conditions for a trade to take place is that both parties anticipate to benefit. What does this tell us about your supposed notions of fairness? Absolutely nothing.

Now the reason why you're compelled to respond to me is because you don't often encounter a person such as myself.

When wage slaves are lay off, they may not find another job, not being able to pay rent, not able to buy food. I read that Zuckerberg lost 5 billion this week. Is there anything he would like to buy that he could buy last week but he can not buy now? Is this the risk he is bearing? Lose a huge amount of imaginary money he accumulated with little effort? And that makes absolute no difference in his consumer lifestyle?

Possibility of lay offs is common knowledge. With this knowledge people can choose to act to mitigate the risk. They can purchase income insurance or save. There is a possibility that life will take a defecate on them. Hopefully, there are organisations such as charities which help people out in such circumstances. Perhaps, extended family will help them.

Then you should blame the sick unregulated financial system. That in the end will destroy these large firms for nothing. Do you call this anomaly you just described as sane capital accumulation?

hahahahah, Ohh, I see what you're doing there. You're engaging in double think. A regulated financial system is an unregulated financial system.

The financial system is broken and the cause does have something to do with government intervention. I will give you a hint; it is not because there is a lack of regulation.

It is more like a Pharaoh (the financial system) enslaving everyone else to accumulate capital (make a pyramid). The slaves still praise the Pharaoh because the pyramid is always getting higher. But he chose to build the pyramid in place that will certainly fall down (not payable loan).

The modern financial system is the product of gross government intervention. Governments exist to enslave people through force or through their consent via propagating perverse philosophy. The boot that is perpetually stamping on a human face. This idea satisfies people like Philosophyking87. Your analogy holds.

Entrepreneur does have an important role and bears risk. But investors should not be equated to entrepreneurs. By the contrary, they enslave the entrepreneurs as well using their financial power. But wage labor being risk free and easy??? Oh boy... (face palm)

Start a business mate and then tell me that wage labor bears a greater risk and is more difficult.

 

[Isley]

No offense, but I'm seeing this thread has been successfully overblown.

Wage slavery in and of itself is an oxymoron: if you are a slave, you do not earn a wage.

Moreover, let's remove the narrated framework of individuals becoming "slaves" to wages.

Assume you were not paid in wages, or any form of legal tender. What could you then be paid in? Nothing, really. That's why currency exists. There is nothing else that is commensurately as liquid as money. Too, since money is a means of trading for goods, and services, and is used as a medium, the salient point is not that people are forced into some form of slavery by a corporation, a bank or the government. They're forced to survive.

Seeing as this is a societal decision, we are slaves to each other -- which is tantamount to saying that we are interdependent.

Slavery is the incorrect word, really.

Any other interpretation is likely an interpolation.

 

[Guess]

Not day goes by where I read at least one published journal paper which is not base on nonsense.

Certainly most publications lack quality. This is a byproduct of recognizing a researcher by the number of publicaitons... But anyway, the average quality of scientific work is still better than the average quality of internet forum posts

I read hilarious paper the other day were these two economists tried to use statistics to prove that the minimum wage decreases unemployment.

The funny thing about this exact topic is that once it was mostly consensus among economists that minimum wage would increase unemployment. Now it is about 50/50 that think it increases/decreases unemployment.
So, what people once thought they know, now they simply don't know...

hahahahah, Ohh, I see what you're doing there. You're engaging in double think. A regulated financial system is an unregulated financial system.

Not really. Maybe it is more like a wrongly regulated financial system, i.e. it does have regulations but the wrong ones.
When I called it unregulated, I meant it is missing the proper regulation and also that some of the elements of the crisis seems to be correlated with de-regulation which preceeded it.
For example, in principle the leveraging of Lehman Brothers over 30x should have been avoidable with a proper regulation.

Start a business mate and then tell me that wage labor bears a greater risk and is more difficult.

Proxy, proxy. You have the weird habit of rebating even the things I agreed with you... Back there I said that I agree that being an entrepreneur is very very hard.

Succintly put my opinion is that an entrepreneur starting a new business bear large risks and sweat. Wagers bear a lot of the sweat. Some wagers bears also large risks. Investors bear some risks, but no sweat at all. Thus, they should not be equated to entrepreneurs (as you did before). Nor to wagers. Investing is the most comfortable position.

Wage slavery in and of itself is an oxymoron: if you are a slave, you do not earn a wage..

I don't think wave slagery term is an oxymoron, but an analogy. Maybe you think that way because you make a dychotomy free vs slave. I prefer to think about a continuous spectrum, ranging from slave (0% free) to 100% free. Just because we eradicated 0% free situations, it does not mean that there are not people living at 0.5% freedom...

Assume you were not paid in wages, or any form of legal tender. What could you then be paid in? Nothing, really.

We have not been disputing whereas people should be payed in money. We have been disputing if they are fairly compensated.

Seeing as this is a societal decision, we are slaves to each other -- which is tantamount to saying that we are interdependent..

Yes, the fact is that we are interdependent. The issue that we have been discussing here is that the assymetry of this interdependence is detrimental to people's life. The person with less power ends up being exploited by the person with more (economical) power. And this has been also the essence in the relation of masters and slaves and remains the essence of today's wage work, especially in some extreme cases (as I was trying to exemplify, people living at at 0.5% freedom...)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Certainly most publications lack quality. This is a byproduct of recognizing a researcher by the number of publicaitons... But anyway, the average quality of scientific work is still better than the average quality of internet forum posts

I am not so sure of this. Journal papers have a vast amount of information missing about the inquiry. If you go to technical forum on the same subject people tend to publish all the information. The difference in writing quality is attributed to the journal papers being professionally edited. Problem is that referencing a forum would frowned upon.

The funny thing about this exact topic is that once it was mostly consensus among economists that minimum wage would increase unemployment. Now it is about 50/50 that think it increases/decreases unemployment.
So, what people once thought they know, now they simply don't know...

I have seen a great many economists fuck up the fundamentals. I have debated a few that literally had not a clue what they were talking about. This professor of econ. said in a debate that comparative advantage is incorrect because capital moves between borders. I have no idea what promoted him to state such absurdities.

Not really. Maybe it is more like a wrongly regulated financial system, i.e. it does have regulations but the wrong ones.
When I called it unregulated, I meant it is missing the proper regulation and also that some of the elements of the crisis seems to be correlated with de-regulation which preceeded it.

The number of regulations increased up until the crisis. The regulations which were removed over the period had little to nothing to do with the crisis because the malinvestment would have manifested elsewhere in the market. What occurred was a typical Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle scenario.

For example, in principle the leveraging of Lehman Brothers over 30x should have been avoidable with a proper regulation.

Or alternatively, price controls on money should be removed . The price of money would increase to reflect its value. Then the higher price would lead to people to engage in actions which are less risky. This would be done by lending institutions having stricter controls on how people will use the money that they lend. But fuck, this a huge cognitive leap for people.

Government not controlling money?

Proxy, proxy. You have the weird habit of rebating even the things I agreed with
you... Back there I said that I agree that being an entrepreneur is very very hard.

Shit happens.

Succintly put my opinion is that an entrepreneur starting a new business bear large risks and sweat. Wagers bear a lot of the sweat. Some wagers bears also large risks. Investors bear some risks, but no sweat at all. Thus, they should not be equated to entrepreneurs (as you did before). Nor to wagers. Investing is the most comfortable position.

How exactly do wage labourers bear more risk? They get paid before any product clears at the market. If the product fails to achieve its goals, the labourers don't all of sudden have to bear the loss ie. pay back their wages. The entrepreneurs and investors do. Now investors serve an extremely important function in the market. Their role is to discern what people value and what they do not. Since these guys are the ones who front the capital, I am pretty sure they're going to be working to see that their investments succeed. If they don't, it is their loss.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@Guess

Watch this interesting youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU51_awyLXl2nxCduuzzmw4w&feature=player_detailpage&v=IG2nU139xVE

 

[Isley]

I don't think wave slagery term is an oxymoron, but an analogy. Maybe you think that way because you make a dychotomy free vs slave. I prefer to think about a continuous spectrum, ranging from slave (0% free) to 100% free. Just because we eradicated 0% free situations, it does not mean that there are not people living at 0.5% freedom...

The above embolding is my doing. I embold that particular sentence due to it being entirely incoherent. What I think you intended me to interpret was the following:

"Just because we have purged our system's possibility of 100% slavery, it does not mean that there are not people living at .5% freedom."

In which case, your stated perception of the terminology in question concedes that you are either free or you are not. This is a dichotomy, not an analogy. Therefore, your syllogism is incorrect.

With that said. . . I understand your point, though.

Yes, the fact is that we are interdependent. The issue that we have been discussing here is that the assymetry of this interdependence is detrimental to people's life. The person with less power ends up being exploited by the person with more (economical) power. And this has been also the essence in the relation of masters and slaves and remains the essence of today's wage work, especially in some extreme cases (as I was trying to exemplify, people living at at 0.5% freedom...)

Well, it is my opinion that even this ideation is incorrect.

This is the point of a social contract: in order to become a part of any society, it is a tacit point that you (or anyone else for that matter) will inevitably be forced to suspend some of the "power" one may have if he were not a constituent of the citizenry.

As such, if you have a quarrel with the administration of, or question how efficacious the political, economic, or judicial system (if not all three) are, then it happens to be your right to relocate.

Too, just because you are employed by someone does not exactly equate to slavery. That's somewhat of a strident argument. I also wouldn't make the pronunciation immediately after I ceded the point of interdependence. Interdependence is a variation of symbiosis, and not a parasitic relationship.

Moreover, the marginal utility an employee derives from employment (penurious or not) most often is greater than the utility an employer derives from the exchange. This is doubly so if you consider the lower the income of the employee, the greater the portion of his income will be expended towards subsistence (ergo, increasing the marginal utility of the competence). I suppose you could use this information inversely, and debate that this greater utility confers a greater power to the employer over the employed, but if you feel you are a victim of exploitation, you may sue, or just quit. That's why America is so great.

So, again. The thread has been successfully inflated from the size of a molehill to that of a mountain.

Of course, this is only my opinion. Discount it if you like.

 

[Guess]

The number of regulations increased up until the crisis. The regulations which were removed over the period had little to nothing to do with the crisis because the malinvestment would have manifested elsewhere in the market. What occurred was a typical Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle scenario..

I seriously think that the removal of certain regulations such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley or the lack of derivatives regulation, or lack of fiscalization of rating agencies can not be dismissed as possible elements of the crisis. They can not be proved either, so one can find all types of possible argumentation about the matter...

Or alternatively, price controls on money should be removed . The price of money would increase to reflect its value. Then the higher price would lead to people to engage in actions which are less risky. This would be done by lending institutions having stricter controls on how people will use the money that they lend. But fuck, this a huge cognitive leap for people
Government not controlling money? .

What exactly are you suggesting one you say to remove price control on money? A constant-rate increase of money supply (as Friedmann)?

In my understanding a lot of the crisis was because of by the ability of private banks, and security agencies to create imaginary money on their own on the forms of loans over loans of the same assets.

So when you say government not controlling money are you saying other institutinos should be free to create their own currencies (that would be dangerous to say the least)? Or simply saying it shoud stop with the crazy stuff (see the video below )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbG5Onm0EuY

How exactly do wage labourers bear more risk?

I will try to explain again my position. It is not that all wage labourers are bearing too much risk (even though they do bear sweat). Which ones exactly bear a lot of risk? Those with excessively low wages. A wage that is hardly enough for survival can not be enough so someone has savings for unemployment or retirement. This was the main reality of capitalism by the end of 19th century. It is not the main reality in rich countries anymore. But it is still the reality in most of third-world countries. The places where the cheap goods of the world are produced these days.

In business which got established revenue streams, this risk from low wagers is actually much higher risk than any risk from owner or inverstors. As I said before, in the case of a business which does not have still the revenue stream (start-ups), the risk is primarily on the shoulder of the entrepreneur. In which case, your analysis about receiving before any sell is ok. But after the revenue stream is formed this is not valid anymore. By the way, I would not call the owner of a established business an entrepreneur anymore.

Watch this interesting youtube.

In one part I agree with that guy: intelectuals shouldn't be praised as annoited. If the average person holds 0.5% of knowledge and an intelectual holds 1% of knowledge, the intelectual will often be proud to say it knows double than the average person. Well, one should be humble enough to know that 99% or 99.5% is about the same level of ignorance.

However, it seems that both the interviewer and the interviewed think that this "intelectuality issue" is only applicable to left-wing intelectual. The same can be said of any intelectual promoting free markets, or any other ideology. They are so certain of that and promote it as the universal truth. And yet, they don't remind themselves of their ignorance.

I always like to remind myself to keep humbleness.

With that said. . . I understand your point, though.

I tried to equate 100% slave to 0% free. And 100% free to 0% slave. And create a continuum in between. So maybe, I don't understand exactly why you "corrected" my statement, but that is unimportant as long as you understood my point

As such, if you have a quarrel with the administration of, or question how efficacious the political, economic, or judicial system (if not all three) are, then it happens to be your right to relocate.

I would agree with that if one could change country as we can change the soda we drink. Indeed when someone has a large issue with its country, one may make everything possible to move abroad. But it is far from a right.

Moreover, the marginal utility an employee derives from employment (penurious or not) most often is greater than the utility an employer derives from the exchange. This is doubly so if you consider the lower the income of the employee, the greater the portion of his income will be expended towards subsistence (ergo, increasing the marginal utility of the competence). I suppose you could use this information inversely, and debate that this greater utility confers a greater power to the employer over the employed

Indeed whenever I see someone arguing about comparable utilities, the fact you stated " the greater the portion of his income will be expended towards subsistence (ergo, increasing the marginal utility of the competence). " is used exactly as a motivation for more equity in wealth distribution, i.e., by having more equity the overall satisfaction (or sum satisfaction) of the society would increase. So, I got a little bit unsure of what you wanted to say on the first part, even though you predicted it could be used inversely.

but if you feel you are a victim of exploitation, you may sue, or just quit. That's why America is so great.

And that´s why I was always pointing out mostly to the situations of other countries. We live in a global society, I think it is our duty of think about global problems. (by the way I don't live in US).

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What exactly are you suggesting one you say to remove price control on money? A constant-rate increase of money supply (as Friedmann)?

In my understanding a lot of the crisis was because of by the ability of private banks, and security agencies to create imaginary money on their own on the forms of loans over loans of the same assets.

So when you say government not controlling money are you saying other institutinos should be free to create their own currencies (that would be dangerous to say the least)? Or simply saying it shoud stop with the crazy stuff (see the video below )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbG5Onm0EuY

I mean free banking via a vis competition in currencies in geopolitical areas. The most stable banking system that had ever existed.

Actually, we need the total separation of government and the economy.

 

[Gargamel]

I think that those who fail to realize that the mayority of people is in a modern, metaphorical way a wage slave, are either not INTP (taking the phrase too literally) or are so socialized by the current system that are not thinking by themselves. (maybe free market creates unfree thinking in some)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

(maybe free market creates unfree thinking in some)

Or maybe, just maybe, people who write things like the quoted sentence above are publishing calptrap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTepNjtm_ZA

 

[Gargamel]

Or maybe, just maybe, people who write things like the quoted sentence above are publishing calptrap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTepNjtm_ZA

That part was ironic, is funny that you focus on one tiny part of a post to completely dismiss the entire validity of it.