Wage slavery (revisiting a basic concept)

[cthulu2016]

A person has the capital to build a factory to process something or another. Most of the process is automated and simple. A worker can do the job without a lot of specialized training.

People line up in front of the factory every day... a large supply of labor.

There are 30 jobs per shift unclogging the thresh-o-matic. Dangerous work.

300 people show up every shift hoping for work. The day's wage is whatever the lowest 10% of applicants will take... whatever wage gets 30 people.

If the supply of labor is large enough, those 30 people will accept wages economically well below slavery. (I stress economically because slavery has moral problems beyond economics.) Slavery has a de facto wage floor representing the cost of maintaining the capital value of the slave. Food, shelter, clothing.

The wage slave has no such floor. If enough labor is available the wage will be bid down to below the level that allows for shelter and clothing.

(Something history omits is how the worst-off folks were often naked, as in "naked wretches." Hell, many men who fought our revolutionary war did so in winter without shoes or clothes... wearing only breech clouts, which were essentially diapers. Clothing costs money.)

People will work all day just for enough food to keep alive. Homeless. Wrapped only in rags. And working 12-16 hour days. (Or more... in a famous example, bakery workers were required, after a shift, to sleep on the dough so their body heat would help it rise. A true 24/7 job.)

And, here's the kicker. People will readily work for wages on which they will starve to death. Starve to death. Under the right conditions, a person will work for the few daily calories it takes to extend the process of starvation from three weeks to six weeks.

We will do that. People will work for such wages when they must, and capitalists will offer such wages if they can. History tells us this.

[okaawhatever]

1. Excellent reminder. Thank you for posting. nt

[wandy]

2. And I bet you thought the GOP was stupit...........

End Social Security = more wage slaves.
End unemployment benefits = more wage slaves.
End the minimum wage = cheaper wage slaves.
Obamacare? What the heck good is a wage slave that you can't make a profit on.
Safety regulations? How silly, see above.

You wonder why the GOP is what it is?
See above.

Not stupid, just bought and paid for.

[rhett o rick]

10. This isnt a Democrat vs. Republican problem. This is a 1% vs. 99% problem.

Many Democrats support the 1%, most of Congress belong to the 1%.

[wandy]

11. I will agree. It's just that the GOP is far more invested..........

in the interests of the 1%.
Their polices and objectives are entirely centered around the needs of wealth and power.
Democrats are by no means "pure as the driven snow", but can you sight one thing, in you're lifetime, that the GOP has done for the common good.
Hell, their last candidate for CEO was not only for the 1%, that Blue-blood bastard was one of them.

For sure we need to work on cleaning this mess up.
The way to do that is NOT to simply complain that they "are all the same" and then importantly whine as a team such as Scott Walker and Ted Cruz drive us all to hell in the trunk of their BMW.

Protecting Net Neutrality is a good starting point.
Ridding ourselves of the Citizens United One Dollar = One Vote farce is another worthwhile endeavor.

[enlightenment]

3. And Adam Smith recognized that this is a problem.

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged”. - (Smith, WN I.viii.36)

[liberal_at_heart]

4. K&R

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Wait. In your example --

You have 300 workers but only 30 available jobs. Yet the only person you want to take to task is the only guy who is actually supplying jobs. You're telling him as soon as he dares to open his factory you're going to come after him with a vengeance because there are 270 other people still unemployed. That's not his fault, he only needs so many workers to keep up with demand which also factors into his pricing which in turn influences what he can afford to pay what labor he does employ. His customers are only going to pay so much money until the goods and services are no longer of equitable value to them.

[cthulu2016]

6. A minimum wage law does eliminate some businesses

If a business can only operate profitably in the environment of 1840s London then that is what it is.

We made a societal decision that such businesses were not worth the broad social cost of not having a living minimum wage.

re: Unemployment. The OP was meant to be about wages, not about job creation for the remaining 270. I agree that at any wage there are still 270 unemployed. But at least if a good wage is paid to the 30 perhaps they will feed their own families or something. (Historically, many of the folks in the 300 are children)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. You tend to use a lot of hyperbole

I get it, it's a rhetorical device but it makes it hard to take what you write seriously.

That being said, you still have to be mindful of what the consumer is willing to pay. No, that does not justify people working 16 hours to die naked and starving but it is still an economic reality that cannot ignored. Anyone who disagrees is invited to open a hotdog cart where they pay their employees $22.75/an hour, adjusted by locality.

[Adrahil]

8. Page Mr Keynes, paging Mr. John Meynard Keynes....

If you can't produce a product while paying employees a living wage, I'd argue you shouldn't be in business. And if the problem is an overall depressed economy with essentially no demand at all, then it's time for a little action from our friend Mr Keynes.

In anything like a decent society, a full time job should pay a living wage. Not a luxurious wage, but enough to keep the average person in clothes, shelter, and reasonably fed. For those corner cases, a welfare system can plug the holes. A company that depends upon public assistance to feed and house it's employees is essentially getting a government subsidy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. The OP relies heavily on hyperbole.

It's a rhetorical device. No one is arguing in favor of dirty faced urchins draped in rags to work 16 hour days over vats of molten steel.

But there is still economic reality. When you say --

If you can't produce a product while paying employees a living wage, I'd argue you shouldn't be in business.

You really are saying: consumers who will not pay prices sufficient to support a living wage do not deserve the goods and services they seek to purchase. But the reality is consumers will pay what they believe to be the fair value of goods and services.

Of course, lower prices also allow more consumers to join a market which in turn can lead to higher employment/wages. Higher employment can lead to more disposable income which, in turn, creates more jobs. It's why we have coupons.