4 ms·

Profit has to come from somewhere. You can't reimburse the workers the full value of their labour if you wish to make a profit. I'd say that counts as exploitat

by tray5 10y ago

Profit has to come from somewhere. You can't reimburse the workers the full value of their labour if you wish to make a profit. I'd say that counts as exploitation. Unfortunate, but thats the reality of capitalism.

xapata 10y ago
The two inputs to production are capital and labor. You need to make profit by paying below market rate for capital (like a bank borrowing from the Fed) or by paying less than the value created by labor.
emodendroket 10y ago
Sure, but there's some space between "full value of one's labor" and table scraps.
- tray5 10y ago
  Of course, but when the decision of where the workers pay is on that scale is taken out of the hands of the workers, it tends towards table scraps then full value.
virmundi 10y ago
Is value created by labor necessarily the only way to create value? Can labor by itself cost $10, I pay out $10, but when I combine that labor (a largely undirected force) with thought (scheduling, order placement, etc) I get a multiplier over the labor? It seems like it should be possible to do this. I pay for raw, undirected labor. It's like raw iron. When I use my skills for planning (speaking as the management for the company), I can pay full price for labor, but get synergistic effect not possible without thought? To keep with the iron reference, in the end I produce steel or even better a car. Seems like the labor to extract the iron met a multiplier of my metallurgic enhancements.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  The mistake here is the assumption that value comes from labor. Value is inherently subjective, depending on what the purchaser is willing to pay for, not due to intrinsic properties of whatever the good or service is. Suppose in your raw iron example, instead of making steel or a car, you make an inferior product because either you or the people who work for you are incompetent. Suppose you make the 1960 Chevrolet Corvair, a car so horrible that it inspires the book "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader. Even though nothing about the product or the labor used to produce it changes, your product loses value immediately because people don't want to buy a dangerous car. Your hypothetical multiplier turns negative overnight, even though your car is just as unsafe before the book as it was afterward. If the labor and your intelligence were the source of the labor, the value of the car should not change just because Ralph Nader says it's dangerous.
sib 10y ago
"You can't reimburse the workers the full value of their labour" But this is exactly the point. * Assume that hamburger ingredients cost $2. * Assume that hamburgers sell for $5 each. ==> Net added value per hamburger is $3. * Assume that a worker can make 1 hamburger per hour manually. * Assume that the same worker can make 10 hamburgers per hour after the business owner has invested in a $300 hamburger machine. * Assume that the same worker can make 100 hamburgers per hour after the business owner has invested in a $1000 hamburger machine. ==> Is the "full value of the worker's labor" $3 / hour, $30 / hour, or $300 / hour? The worker's value add is not solely dependent on the worker and the products being created, but also on the capital invested by the business owner (and other factors). Just because the worker is not paid the entire economic value added being produced by the business does not mean s/he is being exploited.

by tray5 10y ago

xapata 10y ago

The two inputs to production are capital and labor. You need to make profit by paying below market rate for capital (like a bank borrowing from the Fed) or by paying less than the value created by labor.

emodendroket 10y ago

Sure, but there's some space between "full value of one's labor" and table scraps.

tray5 10y ago
Of course, but when the decision of where the workers pay is on that scale is taken out of the hands of the workers, it tends towards table scraps then full value.

virmundi 10y ago

Is value created by labor necessarily the only way to create value? Can labor by itself cost $10, I pay out $10, but when I combine that labor (a largely undirected force) with thought (scheduling, order placement, etc) I get a multiplier over the labor? It seems like it should be possible to do this. I pay for raw, undirected labor. It's like raw iron. When I use my skills for planning (speaking as the management for the company), I can pay full price for labor, but get synergistic effect not possible without thought? To keep with the iron reference, in the end I produce steel or even better a car. Seems like the labor to extract the iron met a multiplier of my metallurgic enhancements.

thehardsphere 10y ago
The mistake here is the assumption that value comes from labor. Value is inherently subjective, depending on what the purchaser is willing to pay for, not due to intrinsic properties of whatever the good or service is. Suppose in your raw iron example, instead of making steel or a car, you make an inferior product because either you or the people who work for you are incompetent. Suppose you make the 1960 Chevrolet Corvair, a car so horrible that it inspires the book "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader. Even though nothing about the product or the labor used to produce it changes, your product loses value immediately because people don't want to buy a dangerous car. Your hypothetical multiplier turns negative overnight, even though your car is just as unsafe before the book as it was afterward. If the labor and your intelligence were the source of the labor, the value of the car should not change just because Ralph Nader says it's dangerous.

sib 10y ago

"You can't reimburse the workers the full value of their labour" But this is exactly the point. * Assume that hamburger ingredients cost $2. * Assume that hamburgers sell for $5 each. ==> Net added value per hamburger is $3. * Assume that a worker can make 1 hamburger per hour manually. * Assume that the same worker can make 10 hamburgers per hour after the business owner has invested in a $300 hamburger machine. * Assume that the same worker can make 100 hamburgers per hour after the business owner has invested in a $1000 hamburger machine. ==> Is the "full value of the worker's labor" $3 / hour, $30 / hour, or $300 / hour? The worker's value add is not solely dependent on the worker and the products being created, but also on the capital invested by the business owner (and other factors). Just because the worker is not paid the entire economic value added being produced by the business does not mean s/he is being exploited.