6 ms·

Wage Slavery - Applicable to [Nearly] Everybody?

27 points by singular 16y ago

josh33 16y ago
Wage Slavery is a state of mind. You don't work for money. You work to get things you need, and possibly, if you create more value than you consume in getting those needs, you also consume some wants. Wages/money are just a lubricant that makes consuming easier. The real focus shouldn't be the wage, but the work being done. Is it creating value? If so, the world will pay you what you're worth, especially in the long run.
looprecur 16y ago
We're not there yet, but our economy has been headed in that direction for the past 30 years. Michael Lind has termed it "Brazilianization", in reference to the inequality and corruption one sees in much of Latin America due to the lack of a concern for social justice in the governing class. Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an economy where people have to work to survive, which depresses wages, which can very easily (and reliably) bring about a vicious cycle. The end state of this is one where the lucky among the proletariat become servants (paid a pittance, but in a nice house and well-fed, enabling a very nice life in comparison to the alternative) while the unlucky and poorly-connected (who cannot even find employment as domestic servants) starve. This would be very damaging to minorities and Latinos, because the upper classes would demand (and be able to get, due to the collapsed economy) white, formerly middle-class, maids and nannies. Minimum wage and welfare programs aren't good just for their direct beneficiaries, but for a lot of people, because they raise the bar across the board. If minimum wage is $8/hour, then skilled workers will expect $15 and entry-level white-collar will expect $20. Increase that to $10, and skilled workers are now asking for $18, and white collar is asking for $25. Although this causes "inflation", it's the good kind because it represents a wealth transfer away from legacy and in favor of labor. On the other hand, if there is no minimum wage (which is similar to a basic income but contingent on working) then the reference point collapses and everyone gets poorer.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an economy where people have to work to survive How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers for us? it's the good kind because it represents a wealth transfer away from legacy and in favor of labor First, why is taking away the fruits of one's labors to give it to another, less productive person, good? Second, you're wrong. minimum wages cause unemployment in the very lowest ranks. Thus, minimum wage laws are a transfer of money from the very poorest people to the next rank above them.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    To be fair there is some evidence that in certain cases raising the minimum wage can, because of anchoring, raise wages overall without having a harmful effect on employment. But in general you are right. What there is less evidence for is the entire thesis of the grandparent post.
  - Dove 16y ago
    That is my understanding of minimum wage as well. If we raise the minimum wage to $20/hr, fast food will no longer be cheap. Some McDonalds will turn into nice restaurants, but as the minimum price of going out rises, more people will seek alternatives such as cooking at home (likely paying themselves a lot less than $20/hr, ironically). The net effect is to destroy an industry. You can pity someone working for $4/hr doing hard agricultural work. But if you apply minimum wage to the situation, you don't raise his wage, you destroy his job. He likely needs the money; that doesn't help! Hence, I have come to regard minimum wage as an act of oppression, and unmitigatedly evil. It should be abolished.
  - Avshalom 16y ago
    >>How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers for us? Umm.. the exact same people that grew them under communism, mercantilism, feudalism and non laissez faire capitalism. "The market" is a way to allocate 'capital': money, labor, and general stuff. It's not the only possible way. Further, an attack on laissez faire capitalism is not the same thing as an calling for the abolition of capitalism as a whole.
houseabsolute 16y ago
What a disaster, that people should have to produce to consume.
- d4rt 16y ago
  It's questioning the idea of work for wages, not the idea of producing in order to consume. An alternative system could be co-operatives or contract working, for example.
  - jerf 16y ago
    In which either "work" is being done for "wages", or "no work" is being done for "wages". There really isn't a way out of it. The first is isomorphic to what we have, the second utterly fails as an economic system. The third alternative is to break wages, but as money is already essentially as powerful as it can be, all you can do is break its power down, and that's just "company scrip" again, which most people consider not so much a good thing. TANSTAAFL. Contract working isn't an out, either. Either we have the opportunity to do contracts already and some of us choose to work for wages, in which case we are not wage slaves because we have chosen it and you lose the right to complain about how we are wage slaves, or contract workers are themselves just disguised wage slaves. Either way, contracts can not be a solution to a problem we currently have; either we do not have the problem, or contracts are not the solution.
swombat 16y ago
We're nowhere near Wage Slavery. As the Wikipedia article correctly points out, "Wave slavery" refers to a situation where people are paid so little that they cannot escape from their situation. Certainly most of us on HN have the ability to work jobs where we earn enough to save money - whether we have the discipline to do so is, of course a different matter. Wage slaves were commonly paid wages such that there was absolutely no way for them to leave their job even for a few hours to try and do something else. Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically impossible.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically impossible. That's a little misguided. For the uneducated, the mentally or physically disabled, or the financially burdened "wage slavery" can easily become the reality. It takes being at a certain level in society to realize that you can create value in a way that is both competitive and creates a stronger bargaining position. It takes a level of understanding and confidence to do this that many people lack.
  - swombat 16y ago
    Ok, fair enough, that might have been an overly strong statement - but I maintain that it is true for the vast majority of the people on HN.
    - run4yourlives 16y ago
      I'd agree with that, certainly.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 16y ago
This term should be offensive to actual slaves. What do you think a real slave would say if he saw a free worker (who could at any moment quit, go to another employer, start a business, move to another country, go on holiday, join the army, become a priest, or just sit there slacking off safe in the knowledge that the worst thing that can happen is getting fired) complaining that he was a slave too?
- silkodyssey 16y ago
  I think you make a useful point. At a high level of abstraction "real slavery" and "wage slavery" seem very similar but for the people who were / are really affected it's a world of difference. It puts things in perspective.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    There should be a word for this kind of thing: where you argue something moderately is bad by labelling it as a form of something universally acknowledged to be really bad. Terms like "wage slavery", "cultural genocide" or "raping the natural environment" fall into this category, and they all annoy me. Perhaps this abuse of the language should be called "verbal bestiality".
  - gloob 16y ago
    The intersection of programmers and people-who-feel-sorry-for-themselves consists of a bunch of people who will abstract away from reality until they've convinced themselves that they are somehow a victim.
- theoneill 16y ago
  It's just a figure of speech. There are plenty of other figures of speech that would be even more "offensive" if we applied this unreasonably strict standard to them.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Examples?
dhume 16y ago
a wage laborer can choose an employer, but he cannot choose not to have one This here is the underlying problem. The free, competitive market does not have barriers to exit.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Anyone can start a business at any time. I'm not talking about an internet startup, I'm talking about a lawn-mowing business.
  - datapimp 16y ago
    Not everyone can start a business though. A business has to have employees.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Huh? A one-man business is a business in my book. In any case if you start one you're no longer working for "wages".
      - argv_empty 16y ago
        And the one man goes right back to needing someone to pay for his lawnmowing.
        hugh3 16y ago
        Huh? I quit my job. I buy a lawnmower (let us assume I planned that far ahead to save up enough money to buy a lawnmower). I knock on doors and say "Hey, I'll mow your lawn for ten dollars". I mow the damn lawns myself. I have a business. What's the problem here?
        argv_empty 16y ago
        The "problem" is that you still need an employer. Calling yourself a business rather than an individual has not changed your situation. All you've done is exercise your capability to seek out other employers.
datapimp 16y ago
I think the important point isn't to compare our situations currently to 'Wage Slavery' but to acknowledge the history. As a people, we have descended from serfs, slaves, and wage slaves. Wage slavery was a competing strategy for emerging industrialists, and a much more efficient one since they did not have to feed and house their wage slaves the way Chattel slave owners had to. ( Indeed, this was the argument the Southern slave owners used in favor of Slavery in the south. At least they took care of their property. The northern industrialists did not.) So, we have descended from wage slaves. And the only reason we are much better off is because of the sacrifices made by other wage slaves who organized to fight for better working conditions. Things like, you know.. the weekend, the 8 hour day, holidays.
singular 16y ago
Woah a lot of strong reaction to this, which is perhaps not unsurprising. I certainly think it is extreme language and I certainly didn't mean to imply that, as well-paid professionals, the majority of people on HN would be in a situation comparable to those truly in terrible situations: both overt slavery and what really amounts to actual slavery. I see it as purposely strong language used for emphasis. I'm thinking more of the relationship between the employer and employee; ultimately you rent your time in exchange for money, which arguably for the majority of people is just enough to live their lives with some greater or lesser luxury, but ultimately doing unpleasant work which, though of course to some degree is necessary and serves society, is largely in place to make rich owners richer. A large mass of population simply acts within a confined system as 'slave wages' servicing the needs of the rich while only subsiding at a certain living standard. I am contrasting this with those of us (and ultimately this probably applies to far fewer HN'ers than the general public) who find a way out, i.e. find value in our work beyond that of its means to provide us with an income, or in fact become one of the rich ourselves. This is not a criticism of capitalism either, especially since I personally believe capitalism is the best means of distributing wealth, assuming controls are in place to prevent abuses.

27 points by singular 16y ago

Wage Slavery is a state of mind. You don't work for money. You work to get things you need, and possibly, if you create more value than you consume in getting those needs, you also consume some wants. Wages/money are just a lubricant that makes consuming easier. The real focus shouldn't be the wage, but the work being done. Is it creating value? If so, the world will pay you what you're worth, especially in the long run.

looprecur 16y ago

We're not there yet, but our economy has been headed in that direction for the past 30 years. Michael Lind has termed it "Brazilianization", in reference to the inequality and corruption one sees in much of Latin America due to the lack of a concern for social justice in the governing class. Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an economy where people have to work to survive, which depresses wages, which can very easily (and reliably) bring about a vicious cycle. The end state of this is one where the lucky among the proletariat become servants (paid a pittance, but in a nice house and well-fed, enabling a very nice life in comparison to the alternative) while the unlucky and poorly-connected (who cannot even find employment as domestic servants) starve. This would be very damaging to minorities and Latinos, because the upper classes would demand (and be able to get, due to the collapsed economy) white, formerly middle-class, maids and nannies. Minimum wage and welfare programs aren't good just for their direct beneficiaries, but for a lot of people, because they raise the bar across the board. If minimum wage is $8/hour, then skilled workers will expect $15 and entry-level white-collar will expect $20. Increase that to $10, and skilled workers are now asking for $18, and white collar is asking for $25. Although this causes "inflation", it's the good kind because it represents a wealth transfer away from legacy and in favor of labor. On the other hand, if there is no minimum wage (which is similar to a basic income but contingent on working) then the reference point collapses and everyone gets poorer.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an economy where people have to work to survive How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers for us? it's the good kind because it represents a wealth transfer away from legacy and in favor of labor First, why is taking away the fruits of one's labors to give it to another, less productive person, good? Second, you're wrong. minimum wages cause unemployment in the very lowest ranks. Thus, minimum wage laws are a transfer of money from the very poorest people to the next rank above them.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  To be fair there is some evidence that in certain cases raising the minimum wage can, because of anchoring, raise wages overall without having a harmful effect on employment. But in general you are right. What there is less evidence for is the entire thesis of the grandparent post.
- Dove 16y ago
  That is my understanding of minimum wage as well. If we raise the minimum wage to $20/hr, fast food will no longer be cheap. Some McDonalds will turn into nice restaurants, but as the minimum price of going out rises, more people will seek alternatives such as cooking at home (likely paying themselves a lot less than $20/hr, ironically). The net effect is to destroy an industry. You can pity someone working for $4/hr doing hard agricultural work. But if you apply minimum wage to the situation, you don't raise his wage, you destroy his job. He likely needs the money; that doesn't help! Hence, I have come to regard minimum wage as an act of oppression, and unmitigatedly evil. It should be abolished.
- Avshalom 16y ago
  >>How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers for us? Umm.. the exact same people that grew them under communism, mercantilism, feudalism and non laissez faire capitalism. "The market" is a way to allocate 'capital': money, labor, and general stuff. It's not the only possible way. Further, an attack on laissez faire capitalism is not the same thing as an calling for the abolition of capitalism as a whole.

houseabsolute 16y ago

What a disaster, that people should have to produce to consume.

d4rt 16y ago
It's questioning the idea of work for wages, not the idea of producing in order to consume. An alternative system could be co-operatives or contract working, for example.
- jerf 16y ago
  In which either "work" is being done for "wages", or "no work" is being done for "wages". There really isn't a way out of it. The first is isomorphic to what we have, the second utterly fails as an economic system. The third alternative is to break wages, but as money is already essentially as powerful as it can be, all you can do is break its power down, and that's just "company scrip" again, which most people consider not so much a good thing. TANSTAAFL. Contract working isn't an out, either. Either we have the opportunity to do contracts already and some of us choose to work for wages, in which case we are not wage slaves because we have chosen it and you lose the right to complain about how we are wage slaves, or contract workers are themselves just disguised wage slaves. Either way, contracts can not be a solution to a problem we currently have; either we do not have the problem, or contracts are not the solution.

swombat 16y ago

We're nowhere near Wage Slavery. As the Wikipedia article correctly points out, "Wave slavery" refers to a situation where people are paid so little that they cannot escape from their situation. Certainly most of us on HN have the ability to work jobs where we earn enough to save money - whether we have the discipline to do so is, of course a different matter. Wage slaves were commonly paid wages such that there was absolutely no way for them to leave their job even for a few hours to try and do something else. Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically impossible.

run4yourlives 16y ago
Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically impossible. That's a little misguided. For the uneducated, the mentally or physically disabled, or the financially burdened "wage slavery" can easily become the reality. It takes being at a certain level in society to realize that you can create value in a way that is both competitive and creates a stronger bargaining position. It takes a level of understanding and confidence to do this that many people lack.
- swombat 16y ago
  Ok, fair enough, that might have been an overly strong statement - but I maintain that it is true for the vast majority of the people on HN.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    I'd agree with that, certainly.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 16y ago

This term should be offensive to actual slaves. What do you think a real slave would say if he saw a free worker (who could at any moment quit, go to another employer, start a business, move to another country, go on holiday, join the army, become a priest, or just sit there slacking off safe in the knowledge that the worst thing that can happen is getting fired) complaining that he was a slave too?

silkodyssey 16y ago
I think you make a useful point. At a high level of abstraction "real slavery" and "wage slavery" seem very similar but for the people who were / are really affected it's a world of difference. It puts things in perspective.
- hugh3 16y ago
  There should be a word for this kind of thing: where you argue something moderately is bad by labelling it as a form of something universally acknowledged to be really bad. Terms like "wage slavery", "cultural genocide" or "raping the natural environment" fall into this category, and they all annoy me. Perhaps this abuse of the language should be called "verbal bestiality".
- gloob 16y ago
  The intersection of programmers and people-who-feel-sorry-for-themselves consists of a bunch of people who will abstract away from reality until they've convinced themselves that they are somehow a victim.
theoneill 16y ago
It's just a figure of speech. There are plenty of other figures of speech that would be even more "offensive" if we applied this unreasonably strict standard to them.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Examples?

dhume 16y ago

a wage laborer can choose an employer, but he cannot choose not to have one This here is the underlying problem. The free, competitive market does not have barriers to exit.

hugh3 16y ago
Anyone can start a business at any time. I'm not talking about an internet startup, I'm talking about a lawn-mowing business.
- datapimp 16y ago
  Not everyone can start a business though. A business has to have employees.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Huh? A one-man business is a business in my book. In any case if you start one you're no longer working for "wages".
    - argv_empty 16y ago
      And the one man goes right back to needing someone to pay for his lawnmowing.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Huh? I quit my job. I buy a lawnmower (let us assume I planned that far ahead to save up enough money to buy a lawnmower). I knock on doors and say "Hey, I'll mow your lawn for ten dollars". I mow the damn lawns myself. I have a business. What's the problem here?
        argv_empty 16y ago
        The "problem" is that you still need an employer. Calling yourself a business rather than an individual has not changed your situation. All you've done is exercise your capability to seek out other employers.

datapimp 16y ago

I think the important point isn't to compare our situations currently to 'Wage Slavery' but to acknowledge the history. As a people, we have descended from serfs, slaves, and wage slaves. Wage slavery was a competing strategy for emerging industrialists, and a much more efficient one since they did not have to feed and house their wage slaves the way Chattel slave owners had to. ( Indeed, this was the argument the Southern slave owners used in favor of Slavery in the south. At least they took care of their property. The northern industrialists did not.) So, we have descended from wage slaves. And the only reason we are much better off is because of the sacrifices made by other wage slaves who organized to fight for better working conditions. Things like, you know.. the weekend, the 8 hour day, holidays.

singular 16y ago

Woah a lot of strong reaction to this, which is perhaps not unsurprising. I certainly think it is extreme language and I certainly didn't mean to imply that, as well-paid professionals, the majority of people on HN would be in a situation comparable to those truly in terrible situations: both overt slavery and what really amounts to actual slavery. I see it as purposely strong language used for emphasis. I'm thinking more of the relationship between the employer and employee; ultimately you rent your time in exchange for money, which arguably for the majority of people is just enough to live their lives with some greater or lesser luxury, but ultimately doing unpleasant work which, though of course to some degree is necessary and serves society, is largely in place to make rich owners richer. A large mass of population simply acts within a confined system as 'slave wages' servicing the needs of the rich while only subsiding at a certain living standard. I am contrasting this with those of us (and ultimately this probably applies to far fewer HN'ers than the general public) who find a way out, i.e. find value in our work beyond that of its means to provide us with an income, or in fact become one of the rich ourselves. This is not a criticism of capitalism either, especially since I personally believe capitalism is the best means of distributing wealth, assuming controls are in place to prevent abuses.