• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Labor a Commodity?

Is Labor a Commodity

  • Yes, it's a commodity subject to the market of wages offered

    Votes: 9 32.1%

  • No, it's not a commodity, workers should receive a living wage

    Votes: 11 39.3%

  • Yes, fill in your own justification

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • No, fill in your own justification

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Total voters
    28
TurtleDude said:
but the rich pay most of the income taxes. the top 5% pay more than the rest of the country combined. and Obama claims the rich don't pay their fair share
Click to expand...

Federal income taxes are less than half of all taxes. Why do you continuously obsess over only that slice of taxes and act like they represent all taxes? We keep pointing it out, yet you keep doing it...

But, regardless, that's just a testament to how severely imbalanced the distribution of wealth is in this country. That means the way we have the system set up is resulting in more money flowing to them than should be, not less.
 
teamosil said:
Federal income taxes are less than half of all taxes. Why do you continuously obsess over only that slice of taxes and act like they represent all taxes? We keep pointing it out, yet you keep doing it...

But, regardless, that's just a testament to how severely imbalanced the distribution of wealth is in this country. That means the way we have the system set up is resulting in more money flowing to them than should be, not less.
Click to expand...

income taxes are the ping pong ball in politics. they are used by the left to buy the votes of the many by promising that only others will have to pay more.


and they are the ones (along with the death tax) most used to appeal to class warfare
 
teamosil said:
Federal income taxes are less than half of all taxes. Why do you continuously obsess over only that slice of taxes and act like they represent all taxes? We keep pointing it out, yet you keep doing it...

But, regardless, that's just a testament to how severely imbalanced the distribution of wealth is in this country. That means the way we have the system set up is resulting in more money flowing to them than should be, not less.
Click to expand...

How is that a government function? what should be the "right amount"

what they can earn or what you think they should be limited to?
 
TurtleDude said:
How is that a government function? what should be the "right amount"

what they can earn or what you think they should be limited to?
Click to expand...

It is a right and proper function of the government to be concerned with the general welfare of the American people. To ignore that is to ignore their Constitutional obligation.
 
TurtleDude said:
income taxes are the ping pong ball in politics. they are used by the left to buy the votes of the many by promising that only others will have to pay more.
Click to expand...

Again - your pontification on this subject amounts to claims and allegations that you fail to support with any verifiable evidence.

Do you have any?
 
Labor is not a commodity because it matters who is doing it. Some workers are better than others. Copper and Gold are commodities because it does not matter who you get them from.
 
If labor was a commodity you would not need things like a job interview or a resume.
 
haymarket said:
It is a right and proper function of the government to be concerned with the general welfare of the American people. To ignore that is to ignore their Constitutional obligation.
Click to expand...

transferring wealth to a group is hardly for the general welfare of America

the most intentionally misunderstood term in the constitution involves the left pretending that the General welfare clause justifies income redistribution designed to buy votes for the democrat party
 
TurtleDude said:
income taxes are the ping pong ball in politics. they are used by the left to buy the votes of the many by promising that only others will have to pay more.

and they are the ones (along with the death tax) most used to appeal to class warfare
Click to expand...

Anyways, drop the rhetoric and speak honestly about taxes. As you know, while income taxes are progressive, the others are regressive.

TurtleDude said:
How is that a government function? what should be the "right amount"

what they can earn or what you think they should be limited to?
Click to expand...

There isn't a right amount. Ideally everybody in the universe would make trillions of dollars a second I suppose.

You're still thinking in bumper stickers. Lets turn the question around and see if you can step up your analysis. At what point would concentration of wealth become problematic for society in your view? If 1% of the people had 99% of the wealth and the other 99% were living in abject poverty while they lived spectacularly glamorous lifestyles, obviously that would be a problem right? They couldn't possibly sustain that lifestyle with no consumers or qualified workers, there would be a revolution, it would be grossly unfair, etc. Right? On the other hand, if the top 1% had only 1% (everybody has the same), that would be no good too because there would be no incentive to work hard, it would be unfair because people would take advantage, etc. So, where do you think the balance is? What is the ideal amount of wealth concentration and why? Or maybe a range that you think would be acceptable?
 
drz-400 said:
Labor is not a commodity because it matters who is doing it. Some workers are better than others. Copper and Gold are commodities because it does not matter who you get them from.
Click to expand...
that is like saying steel is a commodity because all steel is the same

its not

420 Stainless is not nearly as expensive as ATS-34 or L6 for example

420 HC is more stainless though. L6 is better for swords CM-154 for some knives etc
 
drz-400 said:
If labor was a commodity you would not need things like a job interview or a resume.
Click to expand...

Commodities usually go through quality tests before a customer purchases from a supplier.
 
This is why I don't believe labor should be treated like a commodity.

At my company, it pretty much goes that the longer you work at the company (at a particular position), the more you get paid year after year, and that's whether or not skill level increases year after year.

I think this is great and creates sort of a reward system for company loyalty and a culture of 'taking care' of people who have invested a lot of time into the company.

If labor were a true commodity, a person would not get any increases on wage as they work longer and longer with the company because who the heck would pay more for a commodity simply because you've been using the same supplier year after year?
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
This is why I don't believe labor should be treated like a commodity.

At my company, it pretty much goes that the longer you work at the company (at a particular position), the more you get paid, and that's whether or not skill level increases year after year.

I think this is great and creates sort of a reward system for company loyalty and a culture of 'taking care' of people who have invested a lot of time into the company.

If labor were a true commodity, a person would not get any increases on wage as they work longer and longer with the company because who the heck would pay more for a commodity simply because you've been using the same supplier year after year?
Click to expand...

that doesn't establish it is not a commodity

the conversation started probably due to me correctly noting that if one business pays more for the commodity of labor than its competitors it will be at a competitive disadvantage
 
TurtleDude said:
that is like saying steel is a commodity because all steel is the same

its not

420 Stainless is not nearly as expensive as ATS-34 or L6 for example

420 HC is more stainless though. L6 is better for swords CM-154 for some knives etc
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I am saying at all. 420 stainless is 420 stainless no matter who supplies it. Is that the case for lets say, a salesman, or does it matter who is doing it?
 
David D. said:
Commodities usually go through quality tests before a customer purchases from a supplier.
Click to expand...

Do consumers typically care who supplies a commodity? Do you care whether your gas is made by chevron or shell?
 
TurtleDude said:
that doesn't establish it is not a commodity

the conversation started probably due to me correctly noting that if one business pays more for the commodity of labor than its competitors it will be at a competitive disadvantage
Click to expand...

But if labor is a commodity, what is my company's motivation for paying the same worker with the same skill level more and more year after year (actual raises - not just cost of living increases)? If labor is a commodity, wouldn't they be paying him/her the same going market rate for the skill provided year in and year out?

And this is a very influential, competitive, and HUGE corporation too that doesn't screw around when it comes to finances.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Do consumers typically care who supplies a commodity? Do you care whether your gas is made by chevron or shell?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a big fan of the Shell logo (because it looks cool) so I usually go there.

I suppose sometimes people won't go with a particular commodity supplier if they think the company is unethical, for instance. I remember people boycotting BP recently after the gulf spill.
 
David D. said:
Well, I'm a big fan of the Shell logo (because it looks cool) so I usually go there.

I suppose sometimes people won't go with a particular commodity supplier if they think the company is unethical, for instance. I remember people boycotting BP recently after the gulf spill.
Click to expand...

But you typically don't because it is fungible. If you gave me a gallon of gas one day because I ran out and I came back two days later and repaid you with a gallon of gas, you wouldn't care.
 
drz-400 said:
But you typically don't because it is fungible. If you gave me a gallon of gas one day because I ran out and I came back two days later and gave you a new, different, gallon of gas, you wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

I agree - I wouldn't care.

But, if I was given the choice to buy one gallon of gas from a reckless and arrogant Brit company that blows up workers and dumps oil in the Gulf of Mexico just because they can, vs a nice US oil company (let's just say that one exists), I'd choose the gallon of gas from the nice US oil company.
 
Labor as a commodity, to me, suggests that it is something which is bought and sold. In effect, people are then bought and sold, and that is slavery.
 
Paschendale said:
Labor as a commodity, to me, suggests that it is something which is bought and sold. In effect, people are then bought and sold, and that is slavery.
Click to expand...

Ya, and I blew up that fallacy several pages back. Try again.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Ya, and I blew up that fallacy several pages back. Try again.
Click to expand...

If labor is a commodity, why does the company I work for pay a person more money year after year in the same post (despite no talent/skill level increases) - via sort of a 'seniority raise'?

That's like paying the guy you buy wheat from more and more each year for the same product simply because you've been doing business with him for a long time. Would that make sense?

No, because wheat = a commodity and with a commodity you will always want to pay the going market rate for whatever you're buying.

But labor is not always treated that way as in the example I outlined above.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
If labor is a commodity, why does the company I work for pay a person more money year after year in the same post (despite no talent/skill level increases) - via sort of a 'seniority raise'?
Click to expand...

Would you rather have the lawyer that passed the bar last week or the lawyer that has been in the field for 10 years? They pay people more each year because the longer they hold the post the better they get at their job (in general, yes there will be exceptions to the rule). They may also get a COLA which is pre-negotiated cost increases to counter inflation. Either way, the value of labor will increase along the same lines as the value of other commodities. Yes, the value of labor will change at different rates than other commodities. But gold doesn't change at the same rate as wheat or toys or water.

That's like paying the guy you buy wheat from more and more each year for the same product simply because you've been doing business with him for a long time. Would that make sense?
Click to expand...

Depends...is his wheat improving in quality? Is it worth more as the economic realities change? My answer would be a qualified yes.

No, because wheat = a commodity and with a commodity you will always want to pay the going market rate for whatever you're buying.

But labor is not always treated that way as in the example I outlined above.
Click to expand...

Each commodity is traded and treated differently. The going market rate does prevail for much of the labor market. However, there may be other aspects to think about. What if the employee needs training? I know my training was $40,000 to start, but only $12,000 each year I'm with the company. If they can increase my wages slightly to prevent me from leaving they can save $28,000 over hiring another pilot. So it makes a lot of sense to dangle the carrot of increasing wages if that means you can mitigate other costs associated with high turn over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom