Elimination of Wage Labor? A Viable Option? (Political)

[lesbiaphrodite]

"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=lesbiaphrodite]"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?[/QUOTE]

~~~

What the hell is 'wage labor'?

Oh, I know, Chomsky is a communist and an MIT professor, from each according to his ability to each according to his need...sighs...that ole dead horse?


"..."One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal," wrote George Orwell in 1945. He meant not the classical liberal who believed in individual freedoms and small government but the leftist liberal who glorified communist experiments and disdained middle-class life. To Orwell, the existence of intellectuals who loved the Soviet Union despite the purges, mocked "bourgeois liberty" despite the pleasing bourgeois circumstances of their own lives, and identified with revolutionary movements that would speedily ship them off to camps--this was a fact in need of explanation.

The same puzzle is presented by today's leading leftist intellectual, Noam Chomsky. For 40 years, in books, lectures, articles, and TV and radio shows, Chomsky has pioneered the leftist critique of Western imperialism, media conglomerates, and U.S.-style capitalism. The charges he raises are familiar--corporations subjugate the Third World, mass media peddle pro-capitalist propaganda, etc.--but he evidently has the ability to make them seem fresh; millions idolize him as the clear-eyed conscience of the times...."

Gads...another infestation from the left...get the bug spray someone, quick!

Amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with waged labor. It is simply a tool, and in my opinion a pretty good one.

The problem arises when power, as always, enters into the equation. One side or another either fears losing their power or decides they want more. In either case they makes moves to prevent or enforce changes in the system. That isn't to say that their fears or wants are realistic, but their fears and wants will drive them.

An society is healthy if it creates new value, that is goods and services, and moves them through the society so that every one may make use of it. A society that neither creates value nor moves it through society is one that will soon die. The wider wealth is spread, the more healthy a society is.

Wages are a good way to do that.

 

[S-Des]

"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?

They tried it when the Pilgrims first came here . . . everyone almost died before the Indians helped them (then we wiped out the Indians and took everything they had). Yeah, I'm pretty much against that idea.

 

[Carnevil9]

The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I bet you're a Trekkie too!

 

[amicus]

The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

~~~

Well said.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?

And I would like to have a flying giraffe.

Chomsky's idea is a cute pie-in-the-sky utopia. A thought piece. But that's all it is. As with any other too simple idea in a too complex world, it won't work.

 

[CharleyH]

"I would like to see a society ultimately based on free association of a people who live cooperatively, control their own institutions, their communities, their workplaces ... and a move towards elimination of wage labor"--Noam Chomsky.

Comments? Thoughts? Reactions?

Interesting ideal. At one time it was called a commune. I think it's called a cult now.

 

[WRJames]

The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

Maybe -- to a point. But what about the obscene amount of money paid to chief executives and sports stars? There are many corporations that have been transformed to feeding troughs for upper management. Is it really beneficial to enable that kind of greed? I would support confiscation of anything above, say, 2 million a year. That should be enough to get by on.

As for eliminating "wage labor" -- corporations have been eager to replace this with salary labor because they don't have to pay overtime. They can then raise the number of hours in the work week arbitrarily high. This because of the connivance of a Repubican Congress which has removed any vestige of protection for labor.

 

[rgraham666]

The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

Hilarious!

 

[Carnevil9]

Maybe -- to a point. But what about the obscene amount of money paid to chief executives and sports stars? There are many corporations that have been transformed to feeding troughs for upper management. Is it really beneficial to enable that kind of greed? ..........

What do you care how much a sports star or the CEO of a corporation takes home? If they provide good products and services for the price, patronize them. If they don't, don't. No need to be offended by the good negotiation skills of others.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Charlie mentioned hippie communes. In the 19th C there were a number of utopian socialist experiments along the lines fantasized about in the OP. I don't really have to tell you all how they turned out, do I?

S-Des mentioned the pilgrims. Amazingly the story it true of how the pilgrims began with a commune system, starved, said "fucketh this," served up private property, thrived, invited the Indians to a party on the third Thursday in November, and watched the Detroit Lions get creamed. This is beautifully described (but without my fanciful flourishes) in pilgrim father William Bradford's journal, "Of Plymouth Plantation":

So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this [Volume 1, Page 580] community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

 

[WRJames]

What do you care how much a sports star or the CEO of a corporation takes home? If they provide good products and services for the price, patronize them. If they don't, don't. No need to be offended by the good negotiation skills of others.

Well, having just retired from a corporation that has been crippled and plundered by the greed of its top executives, I care a lot. I have a deep, personal grudge. The rest of us couldn't get the resources we needed to do our work, we were forced to work excessive overtime, to provide huge bonuses for upper management. And that is fairly typical in corporate America today. Why have corporations abandoned all pretense of civic virture? Why do we live in culture of greed? In part it's because our tax system has been relaxed to allow it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What do you care how much a sports star or the CEO of a corporation takes home? If they provide good products and services for the price, patronize them. If they don't, don't. No need to be offended by the good negotiation skills of others.

I imagine envy drives this, but it's hard for me to imagine. It's pernicious, whatever it is. Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, committed candor on this last year: "It's a distraction [from the actual situation of middle-class Americans] to debate whether we have a higher standard of living now [compared to 1979] or not. We probably do. But so what? Middle-class Americans are not getting their fair share."

In other words, the absolute economic well-being of most Americans matters less than their relative position.

Here's another angle:

The egalitarian argument against inequality starts with the claim that income is all relative: Above a basic subsistence level, they say, we care more about our financial position relative to others than about our absolute income. Experimental studies are often cited that appear to bear this idea out.

In one such study, two-thirds of subjects said that they would be happier at a company where they earned $33,000 while their colleagues earned $30,000 than at one where they earned $35,000 while their colleagues earned $38,000. In another experiment, 56% of participants chose a hypothetical job paying $50,000 per year while everyone else earned $25,000, rather than a job paying $100,000 per year while others made $200,000. Thus, the thinking goes, the very fact that some people have less than others leads to unhappiness, even without deprivation.

But the egalitarians misinterpret the experimental evidence. The studies cited above don't necessarily tell us that people would be happier in a world of total equality. Rather, they indicate that if there is no apparent prospect for getting ahead themselves (as there indeed was not in the experiment), people will focus instead on having more than others -- even to the point of neglecting their financial interests.

There is a fundamental reason to doubt the link between economic inequality and unhappiness. If the egalitarians are right, then average happiness levels should be falling. They aren't.

The GSS shows that in 1972, 30% of the population said that they were "very happy" with their lives; in 1982, 31%; in 1993, 32%; and in 2004, 31%. In other words, no significant change in reported happiness occurred -- even as income inequality has increased significantly.

The data do tell us that economic mobility -- not equality -- is associated with happiness. The GSS asked respondents, "The way things are in America, people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living -- do you agree or disagree?" The two-thirds of the population who agreed were 44% more likely than the others to say they were "very happy," 40% less likely to say that they felt "no good at all" at times, and 20% less likely to say that they felt like failures. In other words, those who don't believe in economic mobility -- for themselves or for others -- are not as happy as those who do.

Perhaps in a world where there is no opportunity for advancement, an important concern is how one's income measures up to others. In the real world where people believe there is opportunity, however, one's own income potential matters a great deal more than what others are earning. Some studies even find that the happiness of workers rises as the incomes of others climb relative to their own, because they see the incomes of others as evidence of what they themselves can achieve.

Believing in mobility, then, helps make people happy. Is this belief a delusion? Does economic mobility actually exist in America today? It does.

The U.S. Census Bureau, the Urban Institute and the Federal Reserve have all pointed out that, as a general rule, about a fifth of the people in the lowest income quintile will climb to a higher quintile within a year, and that about half will rise within a decade. True, a significant proportion of people will fall over the same period. But the studies nevertheless put paid to the claim that economic mobility is in any way unusual. Millions and millions of poor Americans climb out of the ranks of poverty every year.

Those who don't rise will probably not become happier if we redistribute more income. Indeed, the effect may be just the opposite. Redistributionist policies tend to reduce incentives to create wealth, which means less economic growth and fewer jobs, and less charitable giving -- all to the detriment of those lower on the income scale. But more important, redistribution can, as the American welfare system has shown, turn beneficiaries into demoralized long-term dependents.
from "The Left's 'Inequality' Obsession" by Arthur C. Brooks

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

This is a reasonable and accurate description of perhaps the most critical incentive that causes people to work and seek to improve the economic well being of themselves and their families. There really is no denying the truth of the statement, so those who for inexplicable reasons hate this truth sometimes just snarl when it is clearly stated.

 

[R. Richard]

Interesting ideal. At one time it was called a commune. I think it's called a cult now.

Call it what you will, it doesn't work.

There was a commune/cult in Iowa called Amana. They had a utopian lifestyle, built on some very attractive ethical and moral principles. They made regrigerators and freezers to earn their living and the lifestyle was attractive to many. However, the State of Iowa unwitttingly destroyed Amana. Iowa built a new, two lane road past the Amana colony to serve other communities. As soon as the road got put in and the traffic past the Amana colony picked up, the kids split for the 'big city,' [yes Virginia, Des Moines, Iowa is considered a big city in Iowa.] The kids didn't exactly buy into hard work and contemplation. The kids had this theory about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll!

 

[The_Fool]

Nobody has thrown Maslow into the mix. Or did I miss it?

 

[elsol]

My BMW is my BMW, not our BMW.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Nobody has thrown Maslow into the mix. Or did I miss it?

Need more words . . .



(IOW, you wanna spell that out? Hierarchies and stuff, but specify what you think it means here.)

 

[WRJames]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnevil9
The possibility of wealth, and the fear of poverty, are what motivate people to work hard, making society move forward, and raising the standard of living for everyone.

The loss of these positive reinforcements (such as through confiscatory taxes on the wealthy) and negative reinforcements (such as through welfare) leads to economic malaise. And that is why communist regimes generally fail. American liberals (and doubtless other varieties) fail to grasp this simple fact, no matter how many times they observe it.....Carney

This is a reasonable and accurate description of perhaps the most critical incentive that causes people to work and seek to improve the economic well being of themselves and their families. There really is no denying the truth of the statement, so those who for inexplicable reasons hate this truth sometimes just snarl when it is clearly stated.

Ah -- if only it were that simple. Wouldn't it be so easy to ease all the cares of the world? Just let everyone be free to be their greedy little selves, and eveything would be fine.

And, it's hard to argue, when our entire economy is based on the benefits of greed. If the consumer side of our economy ever let up, wouldn't everything collapse? Yes, there certainly can be no doubt that everyone needs to work harder and harder to possess more and more. Isn't that the best thing for everyone? Except ... how hollow we all are. Maybe there is something wrong, after all.

Many years ago, I heard a Japanese philospher give his analysis of how the American worker had become trapped in a cycle of greed. We buy the biggest house we possibly can. Usually that means moving as far away from work as possible -- to take advantage of slightly lower housing costs. Don't we want the best for our children -- the biggest house, the best school district? So we lose two or three hours of our day to a commute. We borrow to buy everything, so we can't afford not to work. Then, the job starts to demand more and more -- more hours, more travel. We need to be exceptional to get ahead. And if we get a promotion, we just buy a bigger house, move to a better neighborhood, maybe send the children to a private school. Don't we want the best? And for ourselves -- don't we deserve a few toys? It will all get paid off, maybe, some day.

The philosopher used the cormorant as an analogy. If you are not familiar -- this is a fishing bird with a very long neck. The Japanese put a ring around the neck so the bird cannot swallow the fish, and a rope attached to the ring. Then they let the bird do its thing, haul it in, extract the fish, etc. And how did the bird let itself become enslaved? It is very good at what it does, IT IS VERY GREEDY, and it is TOO DUMB TO KNOW IT HAS A RING AROUND ITS NECK.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Aside from having the necessities to survive (food, shelter, clothing), I am simply interested in developing a life that consists of contemplation, learning, generosity, spirituality, and love. I have no interest in consumption, greed, commerce, suburban life, 2.5 kids, or any of that.

For me, life is an opportunity to achieve happiness and build the soul to a level that will allow ultimate nirvana.

My only interest in submitting this thread was to create opportunities for cognitive dissonance, potential dialectics, and the hope for mind-expansion through creative dialogue.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Aside from having the necessities to survive (food, shelter, clothing), I am simply interested in developing a life that consists of contemplation, learning, generosity, spirituality, and love. I have no interest in consumption, greed, commerce, suburban life, 2.5 kids, or any of that.

For me, life is an opportunity to achieve happiness and build the soul to a level that will allow ultimate nirvana.

Ah -- if only it were that simple. Wouldn't it be so easy to ease all the cares of the world? Just let everyone be free to be their greedy little selves, and eveything would be fine.

. . . the American worker had become trapped in a cycle of greed. We buy the biggest house we possibly can. We borrow to buy everything, so we can't afford not to work.

If you have children wouldn't you like to be able to help them with college and other starting-out costs? Unless you are independently wealthy you must work to exist - wouldn't you like to not have to work for your entire life, but instead be able to enjoy leisure and economic security in your later years? Wouldn't you like to have some ability to travel and experience different things in your life? All those things require accumulating some surplus (savings). Pursuing higher income is not just about aquiring more knick-knacks.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

If you have children wouldn't you like to be able to help them with college and other starting-out costs? Unless you are independently wealthy you must work to exist - wouldn't you like to not have to work for your entire life, but instead be able to enjoy leisure and economic security in your later years? Wouldn't you like to have some ability to travel and experience different things in your life? All those things require accumulating some surplus (savings). Pursuing higher income is not just about aquiring more knick-knacks.

1. Well, let's see. I have no children, but I also have no objection to people wanting to help them with school.

2. I do work (but not to exist). I also do not exist simply to work.

3. I already have economic security, but I do not structure my life around having it either now or in my senior years.

4. I have traveled the entire North American continent, parts of Europe, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and Tibet; and, I have experienced more life than you can possibly imagine already (and I'm still in my 30s).

5. I agree with you. Saving is not just about acquiring more knick-knacks.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

1. Well, let's see. I have no children, but I also have no objection to people wanting to help them with school.

2. I do work (but not to exist). I also do not exist simply to work.

3. I already have economic security, but I do not structure my life around having it either now or in my senior years.

4. I have traveled the entire North American continent, parts of Europe, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and Tibet; and, I have experienced more life than you can possibly imagine already (and I'm still in my 30s).

5. I agree with you. Saving is not just about acquiring more knick-knacks.

OK. Now, how do you reconcile that with your previous statement*, especially for those who do need to earn a living and do wish to have children? Or is your previous statement purely personal and not meant to have any application to others?



* "Aside from having the necessities to survive (food, shelter, clothing), I am simply interested in developing a life that consists of contemplation, learning, generosity, spirituality, and love. I have no interest in consumption, greed, commerce, suburban life, 2.5 kids, or any of that. For me, life is an opportunity to achieve happiness and build the soul to a level that will allow ultimate nirvana."