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

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Mon Jun 24 17:42:55 UTC 2002


On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 01:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> wrote:

> 
> 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?

I don't know. I'm not an expert in the system. 

> > 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.

That may be. However, there's the off season, and they do have other options. I've seen them do it. It takes hard work, but it can be done.

> 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 still believe they have choices. It's not easy. No one has claimed it's easy. In fact, if it's TOO easy, then we have the reverse problem. At least in the system we're in right now, if you don't have a group of people that do the low pay, labor intensive work, then the system will break down. 

I'd love to live in a world with a Star Trek economy where no one goes hungry, no one gets wet, and everyone has a bed to sleep in. Unfortunately, that's not the reality we live in. 

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

I survived the '80's with no more than 2 weeks at any one time being unemployed. Lots of other people in this country were out of work, and claiming to not be able to find work. Why was I always able to find work when others couldn't? Remember too, that I have little college education. But I've been employed steadily since 1979, with ever increasing wages, and I guarentee you that I make more real wages now than I did in 1979. 

> 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".

Statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say. I'm not discounting the studies, because I know the system isn't perfect. What I'm saying is that it's possible to work your way up from most anywhere. IF you are willing to work for it. 

> 
> > > But you're cool with that.
> > 
> > That's their choice.
> 
> No, it's a fundamental necessity of the system.

Yes, it's a necessity of the system. No, it's not necessary for the same folks to stay in those positions. They can make the choice to learn something else, and get out of the field if they choose to. The point is, they have to choose to do so. 

> Can everyone "improve their lot through hard work"?

I believe they can. But it's their choice. It's not my job to make them improve their lot.

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

Will it be working with the plants and animals? Probably not, unless it's in a support function. My brother got training to test milk products. He's now gainfully employed by the State of Oregon (I think, might be Tillimook Co.) testing milking facilities. He makes a good living. He didn't start out in that field. He's pumped gas, did a short stint in the Army, and worked as an auto mechanic. 

> > 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 point is that nothing is perfectly fair. Getting our kids to realize that is one of the big failures of my parents and my generation. Now we're passing laws that require things to be fair. It's impossible for things to be fair, because every human on this planet has abilities that are slightly different from those around them. We're striving for absolute fairness, but not everyone can do everything. As an example, men are typically stronger than women. So, if we make everything dependent on what the weakest of us can do, those that are stronger don't have to work as hard. That's still not fair to the weaker ones. If we make it dependent on what they can do, then the strong ones do more "real work" than the weak ones. 

> > > 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.

Did I say I love it? I don't think I said that. I said I understand it, and that others could get ahead too. 

> > 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.

I know what I've been through. Anything else is just like the bible. A nice story, but written by someone else that may be crazy, or just trying to get ahead by writing a book.

> 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?

No idea. I can't answer that with authority, because I am a white male. 

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

But they don't have to stay there. That's my point. *I* lives in what the government calls poverty for several years. I didn't want to stay there, so I worked my way out of it, during a recession, when others were having their pity parties.

> To me, this is slavery and a problem.

That is your opinion. Opinions vary.

> 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."

And your point is? You know, Canada has public healthcare and a higher minimum wage. Why is their dollar worth less than our dollar?

> 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).

Then why are we hurting for workers in certain fields? Why do we let folks come to this country in larger numbers when they have experience in certain fields (mostly high tech)? 

> 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.

That may happen for a while. Then, people would gain experience, get training in other fields, move on, and eventually, you have too few workers, so wages go UP to attract more employees. 

> 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.

Having been in the food service industry, I know for a fact that most people there make more in tips than in wages. My 1st wife made anywhere from $40 to $300 a night in tips, as a waitress in a lottery store. It was called a deli, but you know the type of place I'm talking about. 

> 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).

Alternatively, catch rainwater. 

Does the membership list mean that it WILL be unfair?

> > 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.

The folks that I know of that live in these areas are doing so by choice, and seem to be quite happy in their existance.

> 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.

Slave means no pay, you are owned by someone else, and there's no way out. None of those is true.

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

We've jumped from "strawberry pickers" to farm workers. 
> 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.

There's not much either of us can do to change it either. 

There's a poem/prayer that goes like this:

God Grant Me The Serenity

To Accept The Things I Cannot Change

Courage To Change The Things I Can

And The Wisdom To Know The Difference

I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a religious person. But there's a lot of truth in that. 

> 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.

Most farmers I know grow their own crops. They need help picking because there's more work than one person can do. That's part of production, and happens throughout the rest of the year.

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

See above. I see no "slave" class. 

Slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

If they have the choice to walk away, they aren't slaves. If they get paid, they aren't slaves. If they aren't owned ("chattel") then they aren't slaves.

> 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.

As I said above. I'd love to live in the world they portray on ST:TNG. Unfortunately, that's not the reality we live in.

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

I just don't see how that will happen. 

> 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.

Some of us, yes. Others have no such compunction.

> > 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.

Many do. Many others will not.

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

I've never had a "whole lot of free time". I've been working for a living since I was 14, and the only "free time" I've had has been a week here or there for vacation, when I worked for someone that offered time off as a benefit. 

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

I'm not sure I understand the question.

> 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.

Even those producing the software we use are gaining something from it. Either they are employed by someone who benefits from their work (Linus is one example). Or they will gain experience and name recognition, and will be more marketable themselves. 

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

That's human nature. It's also the "fair" in me that I lambasted above.

> > > 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.

That's a side note, and doesn't answer the question. Could it happen that way?

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

No. Because life isn't fair, and I'm ok with that.

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

I don't. But your system depeneds on people working when they can, and I'm saying that people won't work if they don't have to.

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

Where did I say I had that right?

> 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?

Why would I if I didn't have to? I know others will do it, so, since I don't like farmwork, I'll let them do it.


-- 
"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