What I'm arguing is that wage labor is not fair. A person sells his labor power for a certain amount of time, during which the capitalist can use his labor power as he choses in exchange for wages(a predetermined amount of money).
The worker proceeds to work. Say the worker's wages is $10 per hour, and he works for 10 hours. Each hour his work yields $20 worth of profits for the capitalist, of which he pays the worker $10.
This is unfair because the worker is not paid for the value he creates, but rather for his labor power. In this case he is cut short by half, which the capitalist takes for himself.
In a more fair situation the worker would be paid based on his work and how much value it yields, instead of a predetermined amount. This would increase the standard of living of the worker.
Now of course the reason the worker doesn't get paid the full amount of the profits he makes is because he does not own the factory or the tools that make up the finished product. In socialism he would own the factory and the tools, along with all the other workers at that factory, which makse them all eligable to make the full amount of value that he creates.
Less luxury cars and villas for the capitalist, and twice the material wealth to the workers.
^
I doubt she will read it.
I doubt ill read it. But if i do, ill tell you.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
The worker, or another "exploited" worker, buys the product offered by the capitalist. The product is on store shelves for the predetermined price of $40. But the worker-buyer receives $50 of value from the good.
Has the capitalist been exploited?
@Neodoxy
I'm still trying to process everything you said, but I think I understand where you're coming from. I just don't understand how it's fair that the capitalist can make so much more when his labour if obviously not worthy of that relative to what his labourers do, especially when it's hard labour.
If the laborer thinks that it is not worthy to be paid x amount of money for y amount of work, then he ought to look for another job.
If he agrees to it, then obviously he thinks that there may be some justification for his entrance into the contract.
What about an engineering office? Nobody does shit.
MML,
If there's anything that I can clarify then I will be happy to do so, I realize that I threw a wall of text at you.
I can understand your confusion, and it's not something that I like either, but I like capitalists making so much more if it means that everyone gets more, if it means that the hard laborers can feed their families and see the quality of their lives increase over time as the market system sets to work and increases the incomes of everyone within the system.
It is the most fair because it is the best possibility for everyone, not just for the capitalists (indeed they benefit from state interventions by and large but that's another issue) but for everyone. If I could I would see everyone rich, but no one, not me, you, or the government, have the power to make this so. We can only work in the right direction, the system of the free market.
I work in engineering, pal. Regardless, that's not the point. It ain't hard labour. And it begs the question if the "capitalist" running the show is equally exploitative of fat guys shaped like pears.
MML, I would appreciate some attention to my (shorter) argument as well.
the way I see it what makes a job pay well is the demand, and once market forces account for that you have risk, skill, and physicality. The higher the risk, the higher the skill, the higher the physical nature of the job, the more money it pays. The offset to all of those are the benefits: good working conditions. "easy" work in the sense that its something that isnt difficult to to do, its not a challenge. And the physical nature of the job, like an ironworker or a football player versus an i.t. Guy who telecommutes. If standards, including presence, apply to your physical corpus, you get compensated for that in some form.
and there are scarcity demands that market forces cannot account for, not everyone can be a musician, or whatever.
I don't find fault with anything there, or disagree, but this is the sort of thing I'm trying to dig into the mind of the whatever? the OP is. Generally the socialist/exploited worker syndrome is someone who doesn't do anything productive. Just general service work, entry-level, to the entry-level. Which is fine, I suppose. There's a place for it. But if you're 40 and slinging lattes, you've made mistakes or there's something much larger, terribly wrong. Probably both are equally likely in this time and place.
If we can get to the core of what type of creature thinks they are exploited by the "capitalist" or whatever boogey man term they like to use, then a cure can be assessed. I've found actually producing something, creating, progress, fixes a whole lot of these demons and why it's so dangerous for an entire economy to move towards service. Basically, there's nothing like sucking at something to put success into perspective.
The capitalist is not paid at the point of production. They are paid at the point of sale, if the item sells. The laborer demands to be paid daily/weekly, the capitalist may not see the return on that individuals labor until months/years after the production is complete. However, the laborer is not willing to wait for the point-of-sale. The laborer wants to be paid upfront. Thus, the capitalist is something of a lender of sorts. It lends out its financial capital up front in exchange for a larger return at the point-of-sale. There are companies who allow the laborer to wait until the point-of-sale (vs being paid up front) in exchange for sharing in the profits. However, the laborer is also taking a risk because the profits may not be what they thought.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
If employment is available and the worker can also sell his product directly to the consumer, and the worker STILL chooses employment, then you've got to realize there's a reason why the employee is preferring employment to servicing the consumer directly.
When you figure that out, OP, then you'll know why your reasoning is fallacious. Hint: it has to do with how much more productive you can be if you use the capitalist's productive capital versus producing without his capital. Your wage is derived from how productive you can be. The value of your labor with his capital is so much greater that, even with the cut the capitalist takes out of the wage he pays you, you can earn more from employment than you could on your own with direct access to the consumer and less productive capital.
So, it's literally win/win for everyone.
I ask the question on this topic, the example of a doorman or a porter at five star $1000 a night hotel. Should he be paid more than an individual working the same job at a $200 a night hotel?
Unfortunately the answer is that the employer will always pay as little as he can, but if he wants a higher level of service then he might have to pay more than the other cheaper hotel pay their porter. It is this mechanism that leads to competition in the job market and ultimately the incentive to increase the quality of the service which results in an overall benefit to civilisation.