I've just been thinking about how socialists say that wages are there to keep you bound to capitalists, and, that the capitalists somehow are exploiting you when you work and not giving you what you deserve. I hope to in this topic, to, destroy whatever such fallacies there may be with the idea that it is exploitation, and, that it's not really a fallacy, but a deep rooted feeling of jealousy, and, hatred for the capitalists who employ them and give them work.
What I am about to quote is from a socialist leaning website
But let’s say you’re lucky enough to have a good-paying job. Even workers who have managed to pay for their homes, cars and household goods can still lose them once the economy implodes. They may be faced with catastrophic medical costs because there is no socialized medicine. Or they can get laid off and then where will they get the money to live on? How many people are already selling many of their possessions to raise cash? Garage and yard sales are everywhere. It is times like these that expose the illusion that capitalism protects personal property. Whether you bought on time or not, you can still lose everything. What capitalism does protect big-time is capital—that is, the kind of private property that is used to exploit workers and create profits. That’s why the capitalist government was so quick to bail out the banks and corporations when they were facing bankruptcy. It has now spent trillions of the workers’ money to save the corporations and banks that exploit them.
But let’s say you’re lucky enough to have a good-paying job. Even workers who have managed to pay for their homes, cars and household goods can still lose them once the economy implodes. They may be faced with catastrophic medical costs because there is no socialized medicine. Or they can get laid off and then where will they get the money to live on? How many people are already selling many of their possessions to raise cash? Garage and yard sales are everywhere.
It is times like these that expose the illusion that capitalism protects personal property. Whether you bought on time or not, you can still lose everything.
What capitalism does protect big-time is capital—that is, the kind of private property that is used to exploit workers and create profits. That’s why the capitalist government was so quick to bail out the banks and corporations when they were facing bankruptcy. It has now spent trillions of the workers’ money to save the corporations and banks that exploit them.
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism_1106/
It is true that it costs a lot to live. That is completely true. But, are they really exploiting you? I work at my school's book store... and all I'm doing is just going around helping people find books. I don't necessarily think that I'm not getting paid as much as I should. I realize that I'm as expendable as the next worker. This leads me to my next point. I don't believe socialists understand the concept of skilled labor versus unskilled labor... or if they do understand they're failing to overlook the fact that people are paid according to the amount of value that their labor is worth.
Skilled labor is high in demand. People with lots of skills with labor work in service sectors, they'll work in technology jobs, they'll work with computers. People with skilled labor are paid more than people who have unskilled labor because the people with unskilled labor may not necessarily have the same skills as people with skilled labor do. Of course, people who do unskilled jobs may also have the right skills to do skilled labor. But, they might not have a job that's high in demand because other people have that job right now, they've been out of education for a long time so they aren't as quick to learn as others are, or, perhaps just for any reason they might not have it. People who work for unskilled labor aren't paid that much because their jobs are things that anyone could do. If you're a waiter or a waitress, or, a store clerk, you can easily get replaced. People with unskilled jobs are expendable.
All of this brings me to my point. It's not exploitation. It's that the companies can't pay everyone a high salary. I'm not going to bring up the "life isn't fair" argument because that's not where I'm going with this. Companies have to pay for their operating costs, their advertising costs, and, many other things. I don't feel exploited at all. It sounds nice, like, you would like to blame your boss for everything... I personally think the people more inclined to socialism are more inclined to hate the corporate world, and, everything about it.
They deeply hate the fact that they are bound to rules in a capitalist society. This hatred comes from both a failure to understand basic economics and just deep resentment for those people that are successful. The idea goes that people who are successful in the business world are successful because they rip off others and profit from it, or, exploit the masses. This may be true in some cases, like Bernie Madoff, but socialists paint everyone with the same brush.
Entrepeneurs must figure out the right balance of spending, on total costs, average total costs, average variable costs, and their fixed costs... that is all part of the delicate game of running a business. It's not exploitation. It's that your (a) the labor of the masses who work at menial job is relatively easy and can be done by anyone and (b) Companies must make a profit or go bankrupt. There's no if's, ands, or buts about it. Companies have to make a profit.
It's not exploitation. It's merely an economic fact. If people don't have a profit motive there will be no motivation to succeed. You can't have your wages too high or you won't be able to pay for other things that your company needs.
That's my refutation to the socialist theory on slave-wages and exploitations. I've thought about it a lot and that's what I've come up with. What do you think about it?
I always felt that if wages were so low that they were exploitative then how could socialist theory understand the value of money? If money is good only in exchange, and there is never enough stuff to satisfy worker's basic needs, then what would be the point of exchanging and giving money value?
Of course I also think that objection can be somewhat obviated but the major problem that socialism has is that it can't explain why capitalists have "more than they need". Why would anyone keep money that they didn't need? If workers are poor and willing to sell anything to a capitalist then why is it that capitalists don't have an incentive to pay people in useful currency?
Also, I've felt that socialism is like someone who detests seeing a cheetah eat an antelope. Granted, it's not a picnic for the antelope but that's the way of nature, if you don't like it then why don't you buy the antelope or support someone willing to take care of it? Life sucks, the point of living is to change life to make it not suck.
Höppe
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
There are some problems I have with their assertions on wages. One being the "living wage" that they will go on about, but a lot of the times they put it in the same context as a minimum wage, and that those people (unskilled labor, I presume) should be able to make enough to sustain themselves. It seems while they talk about this the economics of running a business is completely out of their mind, because they never take in consideration the cost of running a business in relation to the productivity of the employee's and the cost of the product (among other things).
Another problem is that while they talk about wages they never think about the actual worth of the labor between different types of work. When I get into these types of conversations/debates they go on about wages and exploitation and how their is some unfairness in the wages and the wage gap, but when I challenge them on minimum wage laws and the living wage with an example such as the productivity and worth of an engineer to a janitor, they have nowhere to go with it.
A lot of the time, when the conversation goes into abolishing minimum wage laws, they talk about everyone will be paid the lowest wage (and this probably would happen on cheap unskilled labor) but it doesn't account for the people who make above the stated minimum wage, and they don't know how to explain it (according to their logic everyone would be paid the lowest amount possible, and somehow being paid more doesn't fit into their logic about the character and ethics of a pro-capitalist person).
I never hear/read a good socialist argument involving minimum wage laws. When I'm in those conversations it leads to ad hominem attacks about how I (capitalist) only care about profits and want people to starve, and nothing I proposed was economically refuted.
Bert:I never hear/read a good socialist argument involving minimum wage laws. When I'm in those conversations it leads to ad hominem attacks about how I (capitalist) only care about profits and want people to starve, and nothing I proposed was economically refuted.
I always hate the attacks.
"I've studied economics longer than you've been alive so shut up!"
The point is, if they already know the right answer, then just say it!
Bert:Another problem is that while they talk about wages they never think about the actual worth of the labor between different types of work.
Socialists are spoiled children.