6 ms·

A job exists so that surplus value can be extracted from labor. If an owner will not pay a worker a fair wage, some might find profiting from their undervalued

A job exists so that surplus value can be extracted from labor. If an owner will not pay a worker a fair wage, some might find profiting from their undervalued labor as morally abhorrent. I hope that people would choose to support businesses that fell in line with their values.

JonFish85 12y ago
"A job exists so that surplus value can be extracted from labor." As the first rule of sociology tells us: "Some do, some don't." I think one reason that taxes & government jobs exist is because this doesn't hold true for some things that need to get done. Anyhow, (I'm sure it's been beaten to death), who decides what a fair wage is? If it's the consumer, then yes, he/she should take their business elsewhere.
- task_queue 12y ago
  I'd agree. There are some jobs which are not profitable and need supplementary funding to be done. But in our modern capitalist system, if you're working for someone, you have a job because more value can be extracted from the work you do than what you're paid. The same holds true if the business you work for is being subsidized by the government. Your employer is still skimming off a profit from the subsidy. The worker and employer should decide what fair wage is, but this means that they should have an equal ground to negotiate on. Large groups of organized well-funded and well-lawyered people are setting the compensation rules for an unorganized and financially desperate pool of labor. Negotiations for fair pay cannot happen in those circumstances. Labor has all the cards stacked against them. Laws that limit the ability of or outright ban organized labor need to be repealed to that end. Voting with your wallet might have a small effect, but that requires consumers to be well versed in how each business runs and compensates their workers. When the trend is that the majority of workers and yourself have been consistently given the shaft for decades, it is difficult to enact change solely through educated consumption.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > Laws that limit the ability of or outright ban organized labor Are you talking about "Right to work" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law), which seem pretty benign to me, or something more extreme?
Kalium 12y ago
> If an owner will not pay a worker a fair wage, some might find profiting from their undervalued labor as morally abhorrent. What if the surplus value extracted does not exceed a fair wage? If a fair wage - however you define that - is still required, then the likely result is that the value goes entirely unextracted. This brings us to a basic philosophical question: is a laborer who is unemployed better off than one being exploited for an "unfair" wage?

JonFish85 12y ago

"A job exists so that surplus value can be extracted from labor." As the first rule of sociology tells us: "Some do, some don't." I think one reason that taxes & government jobs exist is because this doesn't hold true for some things that need to get done. Anyhow, (I'm sure it's been beaten to death), who decides what a fair wage is? If it's the consumer, then yes, he/she should take their business elsewhere.

task_queue 12y ago
I'd agree. There are some jobs which are not profitable and need supplementary funding to be done. But in our modern capitalist system, if you're working for someone, you have a job because more value can be extracted from the work you do than what you're paid. The same holds true if the business you work for is being subsidized by the government. Your employer is still skimming off a profit from the subsidy. The worker and employer should decide what fair wage is, but this means that they should have an equal ground to negotiate on. Large groups of organized well-funded and well-lawyered people are setting the compensation rules for an unorganized and financially desperate pool of labor. Negotiations for fair pay cannot happen in those circumstances. Labor has all the cards stacked against them. Laws that limit the ability of or outright ban organized labor need to be repealed to that end. Voting with your wallet might have a small effect, but that requires consumers to be well versed in how each business runs and compensates their workers. When the trend is that the majority of workers and yourself have been consistently given the shaft for decades, it is difficult to enact change solely through educated consumption.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > Laws that limit the ability of or outright ban organized labor Are you talking about "Right to work" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law), which seem pretty benign to me, or something more extreme?

Kalium 12y ago

> If an owner will not pay a worker a fair wage, some might find profiting from their undervalued labor as morally abhorrent. What if the surplus value extracted does not exceed a fair wage? If a fair wage - however you define that - is still required, then the likely result is that the value goes entirely unextracted. This brings us to a basic philosophical question: is a laborer who is unemployed better off than one being exploited for an "unfair" wage?