[PLUG-TALK] Re: Inflation Sounds good to me ;)
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Mon Jun 24 02:04:20 UTC 2002
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net>
> wrote:
>>>> So you don't think it's a problem that our society fails to provide a
>>>> living wage for those upon whom its operation depends? That
>>>> shouldn't be a goal?
>>>
>>> I don't think society should guarantee that no.
>>
>> OK, so you don't think society needs to support the people that support
>> society. Just so long as we understand that. To me, that's slavery.
>
> That's not what I said. I said that you may pursue happiness. If lying
> around and not working makes you happy, then go for it. But don't
> expect me to support you with my tax dollars to do it.
You said that people who work minimum wage jobs shouldn't expect to make a
living from their labor. I pointed out that there are people on whom our
society depends whose job pays only minimum wage or less.
I'm working within the constraints of your system, here... not imposing
one from outside.
I'm just wondering if you think that it's reasonable for people to work
all day to do things that are necessary for society and still not make a
living wage.
> If one works, one is compensated for that work (assuming we're not
> volunteering..) and one gets to pursue happiness with that
> compensation.
I'm asking about compensation that isn't adequate for survival, let alone
pursuits beyond that.
I'm trying to get at the fundamental disconnect between the societal and
the commercial value of labor.
>>> I do think it should be obtainable for those that work for it.
>> So survival is not only a privilege, but a privilege of the few, when
>> it comes to those who support society's most basic needs. Gotcha.
>
> Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of the animal kingdom.
Rather, you're thinking along the lines of animals without social
instincts. I would submit that within the realm of mammals, that's by far
the exception and in the realm of primates, it's a minority in whose
number I cannot even place one.
You're thinking along the lines of the "animal kingdom" as the ideal of
barbarism and brutality. The "animal kingdom" as opposed to
"humanity"; the inhumane, so to speak.
...just so we're not mincing words.
>>> To guarantee it, you encourage sloth. i.e. "I don't have to try,
>>> because I know I'm going to be happy."
>>
>> Does a living wage guarantee happiness? Nobody said anything about a
>> guarnatee of happiness.
>
> No. But a wage below the "living" standard doesn't preclude happiness
> either.
Happiness is your thing. I don't give a hang for whether or not a person
is happy with what they're doing. That's a personal thing. With some
people, all the comforts and opportunities in the world will not bring
happiness. Let's leave happiness to the individual and their situation.
I'm wondering if you think that a person who works all day to meet a
fundamental need of society (like farm labor) is entitled to support from
the society he supports. Is that not the basis for your mutual exchange
and your belief that survival is somehow earned from the rest of the
people around you and that the determination of whether or not you deserve
to live is the determination of those who control the land and capital?
>> And we're not even begining to discuss whether or not basic needs
>> should be met regardless of work. We're just discussing a living WAGE
>> for folks who work full time.
>
> So, if I understand this. We should pay the 15 year old burger flipper
> enough to live on... Get their own apartment, pay the PGE bill, the
> Water bill, etc. ???
Are you asking what I think SHOULD happen? I think trade shouldn't come
into it. I think that the concept that a person has the ability to
determine what another person "deserves" is obscene, inhumane, and
barbaric. But we're not discussing what I think. We're trying to
understand the effects of the system you support.
I'm wondering if, in your idea of a functioning society, a person who
works a full day's labor to provide for the needs of society should have
not enough to provide for his own survival.
>>> The idea being that happiness is out there, and obtainable.
>>
>> ...as long as your idea of happiness is working for money at a job you
>> might not enjoy and maybe has nothing to do with supporting society.
>
> If you are working at a job you don't enjoy, look for another job. I
> have zero sympathy for folks who don't look for other jobs, or at
> least a way to get to a job they would like. I didn't just fall into
> the computer industry. I worked my butt off to get where I am today.
> If I can do it (without a college degree), then others can too.
What if you're working full-time at a job you enjoy and provides for the
basic needs of others, but that job doesn't pay enough to put food on the
table, provide shelter and adequate clothing, minimal health care, and
even a hint of future security? Should that person go out and get a job
that pays better that perhaps just provides for the wealthy and isn't
nearly as enjoyable? Is that a desired effect of your ideals?
>> What if happiness is picking strawberries all day? Shouldn't that
>> provide a living wage for a person who chooses to meet this societal
>> need?
>
> Well, then they better sell those strawberries for a lot more money,
> and I won't be buying them because I won't be able to afford them.
They don't own a strawberry field. That requires more capital than they
could possible muster throughout their lifetime of labor. The price of
strawberries is determined by someone else and a cut is taken for those
who merely claim dominion over the land and decide that, in order to
maximize their cut, they must pay the workers without whom there would be
no strawberries less than they need for survival.
I'm just wondering if that's a desired effect of the application of your
ideals.
> I did pick strawberries one summer in my youth.
I picked strawberries EVERY summer in my youth.
> Backbreaking work. But it's not a career. I'd also turn this around...
> Why should we pay a living wage for picking strawberries?
Because we need strawberries.
> If the market won't support such a price, well, strawberries be roting
> in the field.
So you think the commercial value is the sole determination of the value
of labor. Is this correct?
>> You said that survival shouldn't be guaranteed and then said that there
>> was a right to "pursuit of happiness". Even THAT right isn't
>> guaranteed in our Government among Men, so what's your point?
>
> But survival ISN'T guarenteed. You will die. I will die.
That's a bit of a twist. Shall we use "adequate access to the means of
survival" instead of "survival"?
Being poor denies you adequate access to the means of survival. Working
all day to provide for the needs of others does not guarantee adequate
access to the means of survival. So what does?
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list