5 ms·

> Sadly, the author doesn't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good

by ardy42 6y ago

> Sadly, the author doesn't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Those pesky abolitionists apparently missed that too. Don't you think they'd have given up had they realized what emancipation would have done to the price of their clothing?

charlesu 6y ago
Same thing with child labor. Apparently it being outlawed was the end of American industry.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Actually industry is what made it possible to outlaw child labor by increasing the productivity of the individual worker so they could afford to live without putting their children to work. You can see this where non-industrialized countries still have subsistence level families that have as many children as possible in order that they may work to support the family. It's not because they are backwards, its because they have no other option because of the lack of capital.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    But the children I’m referring to were working in factories in a rapidly industrializing country.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Yes, eventually the country industrialized to the point that people could afford to live and raise a family without sending those children to work in a factory. They did have to wait for patents on the machines to expire so that more than a handful of wealthy individuals could own capital goods.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur. Not really. It's just a snarky illustration that there's more to consider than effects on consumer prices.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. > It's just a snarky illustration It's an illustration that familiarity with a subject is not a prerequisite for arrogant pontification.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Not sure why you feel that an /s tag is necessary. Why not make your point in plain terms so people can read, understand, and respond? > Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. Yes, however one will be murdered for his refusal to be a slave, whereas one will starve to death or die of exposure for his failure to produce food and shelter. There is no equivalence between being murdered and the natural result of failing to work for food and shelter. > The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). > when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all. They are given as many choices as there are other people offering deals. That they need food and shelter to live is a fact of nature, not something capitalists invented so as to replace slavery.

by ardy42 6y ago

charlesu 6y ago

Same thing with child labor. Apparently it being outlawed was the end of American industry.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Actually industry is what made it possible to outlaw child labor by increasing the productivity of the individual worker so they could afford to live without putting their children to work. You can see this where non-industrialized countries still have subsistence level families that have as many children as possible in order that they may work to support the family. It's not because they are backwards, its because they have no other option because of the lack of capital.
- charlesu 6y ago
  But the children I’m referring to were working in factories in a rapidly industrializing country.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Yes, eventually the country industrialized to the point that people could afford to live and raise a family without sending those children to work in a factory. They did have to wait for patents on the machines to expire so that more than a handful of wealthy individuals could own capital goods.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur.

ardy42 6y ago
> Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur. Not really. It's just a snarky illustration that there's more to consider than effects on consumer prices.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. > It's just a snarky illustration It's an illustration that familiarity with a subject is not a prerequisite for arrogant pontification.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Not sure why you feel that an /s tag is necessary. Why not make your point in plain terms so people can read, understand, and respond? > Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. Yes, however one will be murdered for his refusal to be a slave, whereas one will starve to death or die of exposure for his failure to produce food and shelter. There is no equivalence between being murdered and the natural result of failing to work for food and shelter. > The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). > when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all. They are given as many choices as there are other people offering deals. That they need food and shelter to live is a fact of nature, not something capitalists invented so as to replace slavery.