Economic Slavery

[lewisnotmiller]

My guess is that almost all humans will be working in some field of science, inventing/designers or engineers in the future. And that we probably wont have an economy as we see it today, simply because it wouldn't make sense if there is no scarcity.

What is going to change about humans that 'almost all' could possibly be working as designers or engineers in the future?
There are plenty who simply aren't up to it mentally, not to mention that there is a limited demand for new designs.

Ultimately, automation would mean a substantial level of current labour isn't required, all whilst the total available labour probably grows (unless something happens to our population growth rates).

 

[Kooky]

I don't think automation will end economic scarcity - quite the contrary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Tricky.
How many people aren't productive enuf to justify a
high minimum wage? What would be done with them?

In Australia (2019 figures) the minimum wage was $19.49 per hour. The generally accepted definition of a living wage is 60% of the national median income threshold (per OECD). That would equate to $20.84 per hour. Worth noting that here, it's a Federally-mandated minimum.

So our minimum wage is slightly short of a living wage (it comes to about $2500 per year shortfall).

This is obviously a substantially different economic strategy to the one in most parts of the US. Employers aren't forced to pay anyone this wage, obviously, since they're not forced to hire...but I'm a little confused by the notion that people need to justify a 'high minimum wage' since that is so subjective, and employers are (naturally) somewhat biased in terms of how productive an employer should be to justify a certain salary, with rationale which would likely equate to the saleable value of the employee's efforts (or similar) rather than the demands on the employee's time, etc.

 

[Stonetree]

I checked.
Dang...you're old.
I started for around a dollar an hour too.
But big candy bars were only a nickel.

penny candy, shoe makers, local movie houses,Ford 407 horsepower and a full head of brown hair etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To me slavery is being forced to work without any bargaining position and no chance for a raise in money or benefits, and for too low repayment for work done for an indefinite time. I didn't know there were still sweat shops in the western world.

In Australia, there aren't legal sweat shops, but there are sweat shops (just like there are all sorts of other illegal activities operating to some degree). However, the larger issue are overseas sweatshops in places like Bangladesh selling high volumes of goods (particularly clothing) to large retailers here.

My mum worked for one of the trade unions here after she retired from her regular job (as a teacher's aide) and she spent a lot of time discussing working conditions with cleaners (in particular). It was a pretty mixed bag, in terms of people being paid under the table for the potential benefit of the employer and that particular employee (it has knock on effects though), people being exploited, or business operating per the rules.

Some of those being exploited would be what @Rival is referring to as economic slaves.

They weren't slaves in the traditional sense, but they had no bargaining power, and were paid off the books.

 

[sun rise]

What is "wage slavery"?

Essentially working hand-to-mouth and having to rely on supplementary benefits to be able to feed a family. So, working for money considered to put one on the poverty line. I would consider this mentally exhausting and depressing enough a situation to count.

What it seems you are focused on is what is called a "living wage" which is good enough income to be able to live a decent life with no supplemental sources. And you are asking if it's possible to create such a world for everyone.

My answer is "yes" it is possible. The whole $15/hour minimum wage fight is about that. Is it easy? Nope.

 

[Revoltingest]

In Australia (2019 figures) the minimum wage was $19.49 per hour. The generally accepted definition of a living wage is 60% of the national median income threshold (per OECD). That would equate to $20.84 per hour. Worth noting that here, it's a Federally-mandated minimum.

So our minimum wage is slightly short of a living wage (it comes to about $2500 per year shortfall).

This is obviously a substantially different economic strategy to the one in most parts of the US. Employers aren't forced to pay anyone this wage, obviously, since they're not forced to hire...but I'm a little confused by the notion that people need to justify a 'high minimum wage' since that is so subjective, and employers are (naturally) somewhat biased in terms of how productive an employer should be to justify a certain salary, with rationale which would likely equate to the saleable value of the employee's efforts (or similar) rather than the demands on the employee's time, etc.

I prefer to let the market determine wages.
The UBI is a better fix for low earners.

 

[sun rise]

This is true, but I'm talking about creating the same society we live in (the wealth, the resources, the 'stuff' etc.) but without the whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Could we make this society, with its cheap, fast clothing, without that?

No. That's contradictory. Can we make clothing that lasts which costs more but lasts a long time? Yes. We need to change away from cheap, throw-it-away consumerism.

 

[sun rise]

I prefer to let the market determine wages.
The UBI is a better fix for low earners.

I'm happy to consider UBI as a solution or part of one.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm happy to consider UBI as a solution or part of one.

I like the....
- Simplicity that minimizes bureaucracy.
- Fairness (everyone gets it).
- No loss of benefit as one earns more.
- Greater liberty than welfare programs that impose
many restrictions on beneficiaries, eg, Section 8
housing requirements to monitor eligibility status &
unit occupancy, ie, surveil tenants.

 

[Alienistic]

Employers determine how productive employees are.
There are differences. I've had great workers. But
I've also had some not worth a bucket of warm spit.

This is very true and reality. Many are not skilled, don’t have the innate desire/drive and/or options to become skilled. Simply don’t have it in them, and many never will -not to their own fault. Even if 4 billion adults were educated well, trained well, had the desire- there simply wouldn’t be enough higher-waged positions for everyone. It’s inevitable that there are grunts in this world - and a majority of the common populace.

I often take my position and career and compare it to others. My work is mental, knowledge based. Colleagues doing the grunt work in the factory, the more slave-like physical labor making far less in pay. Yet I know they work harder than me, their bodies pay a heavy toll - and for this to me they at least are deserving to make just as much as I am, education or not. I would exceed at my position over all of them and they will exceed and run laps around me doing their position.

Then I could attempt to argue that I am educated, I went to college, acquired debts and loans for the position that I have so I should deserve more than the grunts. However, I don’t feel this way personally. I don’t feel that I deserve more. I have more of an innate gratefulness for my latent skills, abilities, the ability to be able to go to college and be a good suit for my career. I feel as if I were a physician that I wouldn’t deserve more than a grunt. I certainly see my colleagues working hard, screwing their bodies up to barely make or not make ends meat. Yet, this is inevitable. I cannot change it. All I can do is hate and loathe, see the unjust system and nature of this world and participate in it.

 

[JustGeorge]

No. That's contradictory. Can we make clothing that lasts which costs more but lasts a long time? Yes. We need to change away from cheap, throw-it-away consumerism.

I don't disagree here, but sometimes that's all the poor can afford. When we were broke, it didn't matter if the coat would last 50 years, we just didn't have enough money on hand to cough up for it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would there, for example, be fast and affordable clothing without sweatshops?

No.
Better conditions require us to pay more. It's part of the reason things like eggs and bacon cost more in California, because we voted to demand farm animals be treated better and live in more humane conditions.
Exploitation keeps prices low. All of America would notice an increase in food costs if we started paying undocumented agriculture laborers are fair wage (or if we deported them all and hired citizens, but then we'd have a critical shortage of ag workers).

 

[Rival]

I'm not asking this as a moral question; I'm asking as an economic one.

Is it possible to create Western style wealth and living standards without doing it on the backs of slavery, conquest, exploitation etc? Could a poor nation become the next UK without doing any of these things?

 

[We Never Know]

@Augustus @Vouthon

Is it possible to create a functioning, prosperous economy without some kind of slavery? Whether it be conquest, sweatshops, wage slavery, etc. Has it been or can it ever be done? Is there a prosperous nation that hasn't utilised some kind of slave system to make itself rich? Is it possible to build a nation from the ground without it? Is it within our human capacity to do so? Is it possible to live in the kind of materialist society we want to live in without some form of slavery?

Basically, is it possible to become rich without slavery in any form.

No in my opinion. Dishonesty and crime are involved too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't disagree here, but sometimes that's all the poor can afford. When we were broke, it didn't matter if the coat would last 50 years, we just didn't have enough money on hand to cough up for it.

Being poor is brutally expensive in the long run when all you can afford is the cheapest option today.
Tires, lightbulbs, and toilet paper is what taught me that. Because you will go through tons more of them when all you can afford is the absolute cheapest you can find. It saves money today. But costs more later when you're buying more frequently.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not asking this as a moral question; I'm asking as an economic one.

Is it possible to create Western style wealth and living standards without doing it on the backs of slavery, conquest, exploitation etc? Could a poor nation become the next UK without doing any of these things?

At least to American standards I really do not believe so.

 

[JustGeorge]

Being poor is brutally expensive in the long run when all you can afford is the cheapest option today.
Tires, lightbulbs, and toilet paper is what taught me that. Because you will go through tons more of them when all you can afford is the absolute cheapest you can find. It saves money today. But costs more later when you're buying more frequently.

It does. And most poor people know that... but when the option that will last is ten bucks more than what you've got in your pocket.... well, you never really had an option to begin with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. That's contradictory. Can we make clothing that lasts which costs more but lasts a long time? Yes. We need to change away from cheap, throw-it-away consumerism.

It can't be repeated enough how the poor simply cannot afford better today. Cheap, disposable consumerism is a problem. But when you're poor those cheap options can mean the difference between clothing and transportation for work and not having them.

 

[JustGeorge]

It can't be repeated enough how the poor simply cannot afford better today. Cheap, disposable consumerism is a problem. But when you're poor those cheap options can mean the difference between clothing and transportation for work and not having them.

I remember going to a group(who prided themselves on being Liberal) that was trying to address local food insecurity. One woman said "there's really no reason to give lower income people money directly for food, because all they do is buy ramen".

It took a lot to stop me from saying "*****, all they can afford is ramen noodles! You think they eat that **** by choice?"

Still makes me angry....