[PLUG-TALK] Re: Inflation Sounds good to me ;)

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Mon Jun 24 03:36:00 UTC 2002


On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> wrote:
> 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.

So? If the work performed won't support a higher wage, that's how the cookie crumbles.

If they aren't happy shovelling shit, then they need to do what it takes to find a different job. That's another beautiful thing about this system. No one is REQUIRED to do any particular job. If they don't like what they are doing, nothing is stopping them from trying something different.

> I'm working within the constraints of your system, here... not imposing
> one from outside.

I don't believe I accused you of that, either.

> 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.

Is it fair? Probably not. But I'm a firm believer in setting wages based on supply/demand and what the market will bare. 

I'm definately NOT for anyone telling someone that they HAVE to pay $25.00/hr for a particular task.

> > 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.

Again, maybe this fictional character needs to seek other employment.

> I'm trying to get at the fundamental disconnect between the societal and
> the commercial value of labor.

Well, I'm not sure I see a big problem...


> 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.

You are correct. I've met some very wealthy, very well to-do folks who were very unhappy.

> 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.

If we have more food than we need, then there's a problem. Too much corn, then the price goes down. Not enough, the price goes up. We don't need to price fix. We need to figure out what the supply should be to support the system. 

Then ask yourself this... How much "support" do you provide? Who decides (in the existing system, not the system we've discussed previously) what is "support" and what is "extravagance"?

> 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.

But even in the system you've put forward before, someone else is deciding what that person deserves. He has it. I can ask for it, but he can say no. He's deciding if I deserve it or not. 

> 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.

Define survival. I do not know of a single paying job in the US that does not provide enough money for someone to get food. Water is free in a stream, and living under a bridge gets one out of the rain. That could be termed "survival". 

> 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?

That depends. Most folks that enjoy one type of work have other areas they enjoy equally. It's not up to me to find them a job. 

> 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.

Well, that's also why most strawberry pickers are kids earning money to buy a bike, or older folks picking to bake a pie. Picking fruit just isn't a viable career. 

> > I did pick strawberries one summer in my youth.
> 
> I picked strawberries EVERY summer in my youth.

One summer was enough for me to figure out that I didn't like it. I found something else to do. I delivered newspapers for several years. Didn't like it much, but it paid for my first two cars, with enough extra to go cruising on Friday and Saturday nights. 

> > 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.

But the work is not worth the wage you are proposing. 

> 
> > 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?

Not the sole determination, but that's a big part of it. If you can't sell strawberries for $25 a pint, then you can't pay your workers much either. 

> 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?

I don't know. However, I do know that paying someone $100 a flat for strawberries would end up bankrupting the grower, and the picker would have no where to pick next year. 

So how does this system work where we all have "adequate access to the means of survival"? Who pays for the doctors and the housing, and the food?

-- 
"The power to untie is stronger than the power to tie."                         
                                                                                
Well, yeah, otherwise my shoes would tie themselves.                            
                                                                                
---                                                                             
                                                                                
Russ Johnson                                                                    
Stargate Online                                                                 
                                                                                
http://www.dimstar.net                                                          
telnet://telnet.dimstar.net                                                     
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list