Sort of a reply to Agno

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't agree with this, I just think this is your point of departure, and I want to answer it.

First, notice the guy is working at a complicated machine. That machine did not just just arise out of the shop floor like Venus from the clam shell. It cost quite a bit of money. The guy working the machine just shows up, gets paid his $25 and goes when he is done. The bosses $100 per part has to cover the amortized use of the machine per part, the rent on the shop building and land, the costs of sales, and of course the employment taxes.

Plus, the part the guy at the machine is turning out is just one component of a large device.

Plus, the guy at the machine is just one part of the cost. There is the motive power of the machine in question, the raw materials (or parts that came from other places on the shop floor)

Next problem is Value. This is a complicated and slippery concept that has blown the best minds for years. And I am afraid I won't do here well either. Essentially, things have value dependent on what other folks are willing to give up for it. Things have different value depending on time and place. Water in the middle of Saudi Arabia has a different value than in the middle of a placid lake. The guy at the machine values his time at $25. That is the value of his work. The factory owner pays the value that the worker pays for his time. The value of the workers time is what the worker himself values it at, not the price of the completed widget after it has been passed on to other workers, the rent has been paid, the loan on the equipment has been paid, the taxes have been paid. If the worker could get a job that paid 26, he would jump at it. If the economy goes south and there is no more work at that machine, he would either have to not work, with the consequences of that decision, or work for less. The $25 is just the desperation of the manager to get a skilled worker at that machine, vs the ability of the skilled worker to find something better. In really busy times, the manager would be willing to have him work the machine for $37 per hour. So value is not inherent in the part itself, only in the needs of the persons making the agreement.

If two people come to an agreement for their mutual benefit, without coercion, where is the immorality? In a free society where the worker can go where he pleases, he can make as good a deal as he can get. It is not what the outsider thinks is best, but what works best for him.

 

[JBeukema]

If two people come to an agreement for their mutual benefit, without coercion, where is the immorality? In a free society where the worker can go where he pleases, he can make as good a deal as he can get. It is not what the outsider thinks is best, but what works best for him.

this is what I refer to when I say that his claims are bullshit and capitalism involed willful contracts.


if a contract is unfair, then the workers may unionize and renegotiate the terms of the agreement. this competition and the certain level of conflict it invokes leads to compromise and encourages both sides to seek that which is most beneficial and agreeable to all involved

 

[Soaring]

That's the basics of the capitalistic system under which the United States has been prospering for a few hundred years now. The worker has absolutely no investment in funds of his own to produce the widget. He or she just shows up and works for an agreed 25 bux a day. The owner pays for the widget making machines and the property, and the building, and the electricity, and the insurance, and the trucks to deliver the widgets, etc. Our American unions have ruined this system by forcing the companies to oursource their labor in order to make a profit. Without a profit, the company goes under, files bankruptsy, and the worker has no job. How is that helping him feed his family? Sometimes, we just have to recognize when stupid sets in.