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

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Mon Jun 24 08:39:29 UTC 2002


On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > > So? If the work performed won't support a higher wage, that's how the
> > > cookie crumbles.
> > 
> > So the only value is commercial value.  Is that what I'm to understand?
> 
> Asked and answered.

Not quite.  You said it's not the sole determination of value, but when I
asked what other factors determine value, you ignored the question.

What non-commercial factors drive up standard of living for workers?

> Ever heard of night school? If you want to get ahead in life, it might
> hurt for a while. If you are working 8 hours, that leaves another 8
> for training, and 8 for sleeping.

In the case of farm workers, an 8 hour day would be like a day off.

But in the case of most low-wage workers, you have 8-12 hours of work,
commute, feeding one's self, keeping a livable home space, possibly caring
for children, and so on.

I don't think you realize the situation most low-wage workers have in this
country (your anecdotal experience aside, of course).

I direct you to many of the comprehensive studies of the working poor in
this country, including the oft-mentioned Barbara Ehrenreich book "Nickle
and Dimed: On NOT Getting By In America".

> > But you're cool with that.
> 
> That's their choice.

No, it's a fundamental necessity of the system.

Can everyone "improve their lot through hard work"?

Where are all these high wage jobs for the self-trained farm workers?

> > You believe in your system even though it's probably not fair.
> > 
> > This begs the question:  Why support an unfair system?
> 
> Life isn't fair. Is it fair that folks get cancer? Is it fair that
> some kids die? Is it fair that you had the parents you did, and Patty
> Hearst had her parents?

You're comparing post-industrial late market capitalism to a natural
system like birth and cancer?

One is man-made, the other is not.  (OK, cancer is an industrial disease
and its prevalence is definitely man-made, but surely you see the point.)

The economic system under which we live is a construct devised by men for
the benefit of those who devised it.  It is no more natural and inevitable
than television or Kool-Aid.

> > So the fact that profits are skyrocketing and wages are dropping is, to
> > you, "the way the cookie crumbles"?
> 
> Exactly. And I find that life works out for those that work for it. I
> can work for it, or I can be bitter. I have found that being bitter
> just makes me unhappy... :) So, I do the best I can with what I have
> an go on.

That's a false dichotomy.

There are options other than loving a barbaric, destructive, tyrannical
system and being bitter.

> > And you don't believe there are forces that prevent a person from doing
> > so, right?
> 
> After my life? No, I don't. Everyone makes choices. The choices one
> makes determine what they have available to them. I started out
> washing dished and then pumping gas (after the strawberries and the
> paper routes). I'm now a Systems Administrator for a software
> development company. I worked my way up, and gave myself my education.
> If I can do it, others can too. OR, they can sit around and have a
> pity party. It's their choice.

Again with the false dichotomy with a healthy dose of proof by anecdote.

Do you think that you would have had the same "success" had you been
something other than a white male native-born to an english-speaking
family?

>>>> 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...
>> Do you not see the disconnect or do you not see the problem with the
>> disconnect?
> 
> I don't see a problem.

OK.  You don't see a problem with the fact that your lifestyle REQUIRES
others to live in poverty.

To me, this is slavery and a problem.

> > Then we have an interesting paradox because the purpose of industrial 
> > capitalism is, theoretically, to maximize productivity and decrease
> > cost.  What happens when productivity increases and cost decreases so
> > much that a person doing the labor cannot afford to survive?  Do we
> > then decrease our productivity and increase the cost of food?
> 
> Generally, we find a better way to produce the goods. What we're
> seeing is a consolidation of farming. The same way other industries
> have consolidated. Only in this industry, the government meddled, and
> now we have an industry that should have finished consolidating,
> propped up by government subsidies.

Every industry is propped up by government subsidies.  That's another
effect of post-industrial capitalism.

The risks and costs of doing business are socialized and the benefits and
profits are privatized.  Pollution, social effects (such as poverty and
lack of healthcare among the working class), natural resources and
research are handled by government subsidies while the profits and
products are wholly owned by the wealthy privateers.

If you work for a big company and you're doing cost analysis for a new
product or facility, you consider things like the cost of cleaning up the
pollution and preparing the landscape for handling the increased traffic
or housing or what have you as "externalities" (that's their word).  They
don't follow to the bottom line (or when they do they're grossly
understated as the public foots most of the bill).  But the profits,
they're all green, baby.

This system could not exist without the backing of a large corporate
welfare state and a well-armed "national guard" to prevent the uprising of
the masses.

> > I didn't write anything like that.  I wrote that a person should decide
> > whether or not they need a thing.  Whether or not the other person
> > deserves it doesn't come up.  If you need a thing, keep it.  If you don't
> > need it, give it away when asked and do whatever you want with it until
> > then.  That's the only value judgment that should be made.
> 
> OK, thanks for the clarification. I now understand what you said.

But I still don't think you get it.  See below.

> > > 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.
> > And I would argue that without minimum wage laws, we'd see that end almost
> > instantly.
> 
> How so?

I forget which comedian made the observation that getting minimum wage for
a job is like a boss saying to you, "I'd pay you LESS, but that would be
illegal."

Worker productivity is so high that there aren't enough jobs for all the
workers (hence, unemployment).  This is called "labor market flexibility"
and is a desirable thing to the wealthy.  It keeps inflation and wages
down (to help both the bankers and the industrial capitalists).

Without minimum wage laws, every minimum wage job would decrease in pay
for the sake of increased profits.  There aren't enough jobs to go around
and so people would be forced to take the jobs at whatever wage the
employer offers.

What's interesting to note is that the hospitality/food service industry
has very high employee turnover and is probably the industry most
frequently faced with fewer workers than jobs, yet is consistently at
minimum wage or near minimum wage pay.  The "market effect" of rising
wages with scarcity of labor doesn't seem to have an impact here.  I leave
speculation as to why to the reader.

> > > Water is free in a stream, and living under a bridge gets one out of
> > > the rain. That could be termed "survival".
> > 
> > But the water's been privatized, so even taking it out of a stream is
> > stealing, and it's illegal to live under a bridge.
> 
> No it's not. I can drink all the water I want to out of the McKenzie
> River. I can't stick a pipe in it, but I can pull a bucket out if I
> want.

This is a short-term situation, I promise.  I recommend you read the
report of the World Water Council (the membership of which reads like a
Who's Who of agribusiness with not a single representative of common
people or human rights interests on the board).

> Living under a bridge was an example. There are many places you can
> live that don't cost you. I know of several places up the McKenzie
> (can you tell I'm from Eugene?) that folks hang out all year with
> little or no cost to themselves.

Well, when you catch up to the majority of people who live in urban or
industrialized areas, we can talk about suitable housing for those with
income in the lowest third of the population.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > That's not what I asked.  I asked if that's a desired effect of your
> > ideals.
> 
> That might be an effect. Haven't figured out if it's desired or not
> yet.

Well, you benefit from it and you don't want to be bitter, so I guess you
desire living on the backs of the slave class.

> > > Well, that's also why most strawberry pickers are kids earning money
> > > to buy a bike, or older folks picking to bake a pie.
> > 
> > You have a false understanding of that industry.
> 
> I know that most of the people I worked with were under 18. Those that
> were over 18 were folks just there to earn a little "extra" money.

That's atypical.  Check out some USDA statistics on farm workers.

The USA is the only industrialized nation, however, that does not publish
an official compliation of social health reports.  There was one ONCE,
under President Hoover, but nothing since.  So the data on the social
health of the nation is hard to come by.

If you refer to the 2000 report called "The Social Health Of The Nation"
from the Fordham University institute, you would read that "the social
health of the nation is in serious recession".  We're at the lowest level
of social health since 1959.

Yet worker productivity and the size of the economy have been steadily
increasing the whole time.  Since the mid-1970s, however, wages have been
fairly steadily falling even though the GDP is rising.  This is because
measures of the economy's health make no effort whatsoever to judge the
non-commercial value of the products and services that make up the
economy.  So when nobody cleans up pollution, that's good because it would
only be done by the government anyway and that counts agains the GDP's
bottom line, but then people also get sick and have to pay medical bills
and hospitals are constructed and so on and that's all positive to the
GDP.  Same goes for street repair:  the public fails to repair streets and
that's a plus for the GDP but then when your car is damaged by chuck-holes
and you have to have it repaired or replaced, that's positive to the GDP,
too.  Most of the economic growth of the past thirty years has been this
kind of destructive growth.  (And all-waste industries like the disposable
younameit industry where every step of its short life is a gain for the
GDP and a burden on society.  Doing things the smart way isn't good for
the economy.  Sort of like your idea that we produce LESS food in order to
increase the price to pay the workers better, even though that means fewer
people can afford food.)

> > Most strawberry pickers are migrant workers who follow crops from season
> > to season.
> 
> Not in my experience.

Well, your experience doesn't reflect the nation as a whole.

> > > Picking fruit just isn't a viable career.
> > 
> > That's my whole point.  It's a necessary role in society, but a person
> > can't make a living doing it.
> 
> That may be, but that's how it works.

I understand that's how it works.  I understood that's how it worked going
into all of this.

But I can't quite see how you can accept it with a smile.  I guess it's
because you are a beneficiary of the system rather than a victim of it.

I don't have the arrogance required to be comfortable living on the backs
of others.

> Otherwise, you end up with fruit that the farmer can't sell for a
> profit, and he's out of business.
>
> > The first two are vital agricultural work that puts food on people's
> > tables and are dependent on illegally low pay and a fair amount of child
> > labor to maintain the profits to which the landowners have become
> > accustomed.
> 
> So now you are saying the land owner (assuming the farmer here) is
> making too much of a profit?

I didn't make any such judgment.  I just said that the requirement of
profits is one of the reasons the laborers aren't paid enough to provide
adequate care for themselves.  I believe thats what you wrote above, too.

Now, as for my PERSONAL OPINION about whether or not the land owner is
making too much profit, I would say that ANY payment to the owner of the
land is too much unless that landowner is also working in the production
or distribution of the fruit.

> > The last was a service to the wealthy, as common people have
> > no more than a handful of stalls and cannot afford the luxury of servants.
> 
> Maybe they need to examine if they should be owning livestock...

Why?  I didn't say they couldn't feed themselves because of the care of
their horses.  I just said that only the wealthy could afford the luxury
of servants to clean the stalls.

You mistook my point.  I think you interpreted my statement to mean
something like, "Oh, and the poor common man has to clean his own stalls!"
when what I really meant was "the only way to make money in a capitalist
society is to serve those who already have wealth".

> > Strawberries aren't worth it.  I see.  In fact, no fruit is worth paying
> > someone a reasonable wage to have it picked.  But it's worth a servant
> > class of impoverished farm workers toiling all day to keep the prices low.
> > 
> > That's what you believe?
> 
> Evidently.

OK.  So you believe that the proper ordering of society includes a slave
class.  Wow.

> > You're making up numbers.  What assurance do you have that the price of
> > strawberries is related at all to the compensation given to the workers in
> > the strawberry field?
> 
> I'm assuming that the price paid for strawberries in the store has to
> pay for the space in the store, the wages of the store, the wages of
> the broker that sold them to the store, the wages of the truck driver
> that got them to the store, and a whole slew of people I haven't
> mentioned yet. If the price the store has to sell them for is too
> high, people won't buy them. If people won't buy them, they rot. If
> they rot, someone is going broke.

If they don't rot, someone is going broke:  the farm worker.

Someone goes broke either way.  I would really hope you want to explore
the possibility of creating a world where nobody goes broke and nobody is
a slave.

> > So you don't know how a person can guarantee adequate access to the means
> > of survival in this society.
> 
> That's what I said. I don't have the answer to how to get rid of a
> poor group of people. Giving them money or services doesn't change how
> they are. The welfare system has proven that. Folks on welfare tend to
> stay on welfare, and they have kids that end up on welfare.

I must admit that if I was faced with the choice of the indignity of
slavery versus the indignity of sloth a non-productive life, I'd be
hard-pressed to choose one over the other.

Just as the "crime problem" is easily remedied by removing laws, the "poor
problem" is remedied by getting rid of money.

> > But your point is taken.  Your system requires and impoverished working
> > class to provide the basic needs of society.  A living wage is not viable.
> 
> Well, it's not my system. It's the system we currently live in.

It's the system that you "believe in".  You said so yourself.  It's the
system you think is as natural as death.

> > Give what you don't need, work when you can.
> 
> But that won't work. Human beings are greedy by nature.

Human beings are also lustful by nature and often violent by nature.  But
we also have intellect which allows us to override those base natural
instincts and become higher beings.

> If they can get something for free, they will. If they don't have to
> work, they won't.

That's a very sad view of humanity.  I believe people want to be
productive and want to help where they can.

Have you ever had a whole lot of free time?  Did you just sit around or
just live as a hedonist?

If not, do you think you're BETTER than most people?

And I'm REALLY surprised that a person who benefits so much from the Free
Software movement would cling to the idea that a person requires the
carrot-and-stick of more more more to contribute to society.

> Oh, I'm sure there are those folks that would work, even if they
> didn't have to, but then you end up with a bunch of freeloaders that
> sponge off everyone else.

That's the whole idea of "deserving" that you're not letting go.

The whole concept comes from the valuation of others in order to value
your self.  You can't just accept, you have to judge in order to feel your
own worth.  It's sad, really.

> > Don't think about whether you're getting what you deserve or whether
> > someone else deserves what they're getting.  That kind of thought only
> > leads to frustration and corruption.
> 
> So if someone isn't working when they can, but they still get the
> exact same things as me, I'm not supposed to worry about it, right?
> Everyone gets a new computer every year, even though Tom over there
> hasn't worked for 5 years because he's been too drunk to even figure
> out how to turn it on?

I doubt everyone would get a new computer every year... hopefully most
people would realize they don't need one.

But do you get this bitter and worked up about people who were born
wealthier than you or attract friends or mates more easily?

Why do you care what other people get as long as your needs are addressed?

Why do you think you have the right to determine who should suffer and who
should not?

I can't tell if its arrogance, greed, or jealousy.  But I don't like any
of those.

> > But what if there is not enough food?  Well, then more people are going to
> > have to go out and work the fields next season or somebody's going to have
> > to go out and assess the plantation to see if they can't improve the
> > output.
> 
> Why would they if they don't like it? I don't like farmwork. I enjoy
> working with computers.

If there wasn't enough food, you'd put a few hours in on the farm,
wouldn't you?  Or would you just plot out your own garden and work it for
your own selfish needs?

I think you'll find that the group farm requires much less individual
input than your private plot.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list