Forum Post: Workers Are Not Corn! Labor = Market
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 2:51 a.m. EST by Philpux
(643)
from Mountain View, AR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Instead of taxing corporations to subsidize social programs, we should require them to provide a living wage, so we don't have to. Either way, the corporations pay more, that is true.
People have to live, and labor is a valuable resource. Labor must be paid for, just as raw materials, and equipment and everything else must be. Corn cannot fight for it's value. Raw steel cannot fight for it's value. Their value is determined by supply and demand.
It is a different situation with labor. Corn and steel do not consume. Labor is not only a resource, it is the market as well. Corn and steel are in the market, but labor IS the market. The supply creates more demand, which is the inverse of normal material resources.
What we are experiencing is a re-evaluation of the value of labor, because it is out of step with it's supply. If we are to balance the supply and demand, we must value labor so that those would be equal. We can kill off hundreds of millions of people world wide to balance the supply, but that would curb the demand.
The money will be spent whether it will be in the form of entitlements, or wages. Putting it all on entitlements creates a system where the people are completely controlled by the paymasters. It's wrong, and it will not work forever. There is plenty of value (money) for everyone, if some do not take too much.
Social upheaval has taken down systems like this over and over again. When will we learn? We need to adjust our Monopoly game rules, so the game has no ending.
There go my plans to turn workers into fritos.
Back to the drawing board!
I am the Frito Bandito!
Eep! scampers away
(raising hand) I have a question!
Um, how can you support a "living wage" and also say that entitlements create "paymasters"? A living wage assumes that a person is ENTITLED to a minimum standard of living that can be paid for with one job at 40 hours a week. So long as people rally to have more and more "minimum standards" like internet, or a car, or whatever else they dream up then there will be no limit to the...what's the word...oh yeah, ENTITLEMENTS!!!
Yes, I do happen to believe a person is entitled to a minimum standard of living that can be paid for with one job at 40 hours a week...
You've missed it. If people's wages match the value of their work, then we don't need entitlements. The system is out of balance.
I didn't miss your point. I am challenging your argument. There is no difference between a minimum wage, a living wage, and entitlements except that entitlements get significantly broader under a living wage and are not rationed in the way government entitlement programs do. Talk about a paymaster.
A living wage is measured against assumed entitlements- not the value of a person's work.
Wait. I think we actually agree. My idea of a living wage is a remuneration system based on the value of society. If we are going to have a free market, then their must be an equitable value placed on labor. If a gallon of milk has to cost $8, then so be it. Eventually the system will achieve it's own balance. Corporations have been screwing with the system, by trying to send it all to the top. If companies really want to compete they will find a way to cut costs. We have been in a downward spiral of prices and wages, except for high level wages. Competition + greed = workers get screwed. Competition is good, but when people can't pay the bills anymore, the wages have to go up. An economy is a very complicated illusion. It's not ideology, it's math.
And another thing: Nothing makes us more beholden to a master than debt. Right now, our national debt is riding on the production of future generations. The fact of the matter is that workers are corn according to the government. We and our children are the commodities backing the current value of the dollar. It's the promise of our labor that keeps faith in the dollar inflated. Without business to generate the products of that labor we are thoroughly screwed. Thus, business has become the engine of government. It's a really, really bad situation that I think most OWS protesters sense, but don't understand.
It is complicated and depends on a balance of self determination, government, and good, old-fashioned faith. If government evicted business from government most of your concerns would be addressed overnight. Stop the flow of public dollars into the private market along with cutting the puppet strings of special interests and business will be forced to reevaluate their practices. Right now GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Bank of America, etc. are all posting "profits" on the public's dollar. None of them are "too big to fail". Hell, GM went bankrupt in 2009! What have they learned from that except that government Daddy will pull them through their stupidity on the backs of the American worker? I could go on and on. Take every dollar of the bailouts and I'll bet they translate nicely into high executive pay and bonuses for board members who should have been fired through the only power that should matter- the people's choice of who to do business with. We voted on that and GM was supposed to collapse as a result. Instead, government stepped in and said "No, no, they are too big to fail! The American people are just too dumb to realize this".
OWS is targeting the straw man dangled in front of them by the unholy alliance of our government with business. You can't target business. It's a beast that simply grows a new head. Target government and you regain control of the reigns on the beast.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
Could it be, that it is time for OWS to focus? I believe many more people would become active, if a singular goal could be devised.
Campaign Finance Reform! Many Americans could line up behind getting the big money out of politics, I think.
OWS needs a clear goal, complete with a kick ass sound bite! Americans only respond to sound bites. We need to get all public school on their arses.
Any good sound bite is concise, crunchy, and tastes good with ketchup.
“BUY BACK the VOTE.”
I agree, but there is so much more to it now. There are painful economic consequences for committing to fixing our problem. This includes reforming/eliminating government entitlement programs that have diverged responsibility from business to provide fair compensation for individuals to pay for those programs on their own. It also includes federally backed loans and grants that are floating many businesses and creating artificial inflation. Jobs will be on the line- many of them. However, the system must be purged if it is going to have any hope of healing and a stronger, more robust recovery. That is a tough sell in this era of entitlements.
The singular goal should be to take back our government. I'm not sure that we have the luxury of time it will take to get everyone on board with all that means.
It will be tough. That is why we need a simple place to start, that a majority of people can sign onto. Campaign Finance Reform! Buy Back the Vote!
[Removed]
Description?