Re: Cooperating in systems of oppression

Guy Barry wrote:
On Dec 23, 7:08 pm, se...@xxxxxxxxx (Seth) wrote:
[...
If you mean "somebody else
gets benefit from their labor" then all labor is exploited: I pay a
carpenter to build bookcases for me. The amount I pay him is less
than the value of the bookcases to me, that's why I'm willing to
engage in the transaction.

Isn't the amount you pay him *equal* to the value of the bookcases to
you?

But he feels that the labor he puts in has
less value than the profit he makes, that's why he's willing to engage
in the transaction. So which of us is exploited?

How do you know he feels that? It may be the only way he can make a
living. Most people work because they have to.

Exactly. And there's (almost always) a huge increment between the amount you have to pay someone (who has to work) so that they show up and do their job rather than dropping out or living on the dole or whatever and the amount that their labor is worth to the employer. That middle ground is what employers and employees fight over. When the number is close to what the employee could get on the dole or some other much-lower-status line of work, that's generally a sign that the conditions are exploitative. When it's up around where the the employer wouldn't consider employing someone profitable any more, then it's almost certainly not.

The best-known natural experiment in this area was the abolition of the reserve clause in baseball (pre-197x, a major league baseball player whose contract ran out could sign a new contract only with the team that had previously held the contract, unless that team agreed to release him). While the reserve clause was in force, salaries for major leaguers ranged from high-blue-collar up to mid-professional -- essentially a small increment over what a player might expect to get by taking another job or retiring and living off endorsements and public appearances.

Since then, salaries have increased dramatically, so that the minimum is (adjusted for inflation) about the same as what the top stars made before the reserve clause, and the maximum is (as far as it can reasonably be figured) the marginal contribution made to team profits by the player. (For some value of "team profits" -- the entities that own baseball clubs engage in income-shifting behavior that would make Citibank or Enron look conservative)

What changed, of course, was the power balance, from one where the owners held all the cards and the players' only choice was whether to play or quit, to one where the cards are more evenly distributed.

paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unfulfilled
    ... 40p a mile for business mileage by our employer. ... My employer pays me a set amount per mile to ... I pay tithing off my gross ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)
  • Re: OT: Greet your congress-critters
    ... Health insurance should be both a right and compulsory. ... leach off those who can pay by waiting till the condition warrants ER Tx. ... You pay only a small amount of the costs directly. ... if you ask your employer, the total cost is not that far different. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Moving to Oahu and get a job
    ... >>> They can have the fry cook do double duty as he is ... any employer can profit by trying to make ... You don't pay quality people ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Re: My take on the flawed "Fair Tax" (repost)
    ... >>> employee pays the tax, ... >> An individuals labor exacts a cost on the consumer of that labor. ... > *gross* pay plus all benefits (e.g., vacation, holiday, FICA, employer ... > he received time off with pay, he received the cash he pocketed, and the various ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Advice needed - employment law - liquidated damages
    ... could ensure that my attorney costs are also reimbursed by the company, ... deduct it from my final earnings or will want me to pay him back. ... greater than what the employer is paying me. ... does not preclude the employer from seeking "liquidated damages" ...
    (misc.legal)
Loading