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

No, you didn't. You made an assertion. You asked "do you not know what slavery is", as if only physical ownership creates a situation of slavery. Use of power, to strip others of control over their own lives, often with force, is slavery. Even if there's no special legal class and formal ownership. In the whole rest of the world that is not the USA, slavery did not look like the way we did it here. A person whose day to day life is spent entirely for the benefit of another, making that person effectively a body to perform labor, is slavery. When one has no effective recourse except to toil, then one is a slave. This is how oppressed farmers in South America live. They have essentially two choices, "work for us, or starve". There is no means to control one's own destiny. That is slavery.

Broaden your horizons, dude. There's a world outside of this continent.

Also, learn what a fallacy is. It's not a statement that you don't agree with. It's the abuse of a logical loophole that doesn't present a real argument.
 
Paschendale said:
No, you didn't. You made an assertion. You asked "do you not know what slavery is", as if only physical ownership creates a situation of slavery.
Click to expand...

I wonder where I got that idea:

slav·er·y (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

slavery - definition of slavery by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...

Use of power, to strip others of control over their own lives, often with force, is slavery.
Click to expand...

First, no its not. Second, I don't accept the assertion/implication that that is the case in today's workforce.

Even if there's no special legal class and formal ownership. In the whole rest of the world that is not the USA, slavery did not look like the way we did it here. A person whose day to day life is spent entirely for the benefit of another, making that person effectively a body to perform labor, is slavery.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The day is NOT spent working solely for the benefit of another. That would presume that no wage was earned, and we know that is not the case. If it was, it would be slavery. As it stands, people have the freedom to chose to work or not work.

When one has no effective recourse except to toil, then one is a slave.
Click to expand...

No they are not. They may not like their choices, but being unhappy with your choices does not make you a slave.

This is how oppressed farmers in South America live. They have essentially two choices, "work for us, or starve". There is no means to control one's own destiny. That is slavery.
Click to expand...

That may actually be slavery, but you failed to prove that is even happening or that that is in any way related to the labor market in the US.

Broaden your horizons, dude. There's a world outside of this continent.
Click to expand...

Dude? LOL..whatever...Dude. We aren't talking about outside the US. This is a forum about US politics. If you want to talk about slavery on the international stage, try starting another thread.

Also, learn what a fallacy is. It's not a statement that you don't agree with. It's the abuse of a logical loophole that doesn't present a real argument.
Click to expand...

Well, I was using the word to describe a false notion...what do you think a fallacy is? You see, I saw your assertion that "people are being bought and sold" as a description of labor and since I know that people have the freedom to chose which jobs they accept and which they don't and that they are selling their time and not their person so I called it a fallacy because it was a false notion.
 
ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point that I was making is that my company - so long as this person is doing their job - will give him/her a raise based solely on seniority and length of employment with the company. The extra money is not awarded for any sort of skill or experience increase.

I see this ALL the time too; the older lady who is not so great at computers and on her way to retirement is getting paid 35% more than the 28 year old - who got hired onto the position 2 years ago - who's much faster, quicker, and (lets say for this example) a more valuable employee in the eyes of management. Both the old lady and the 28 year old hold the same position which requires the same skills.

If labor = a commodity, this type of thing wouldn't fly at all because it wouldn't make sense. The company's paying more for the 'less valuable' product?



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

Nope, same wheat, same provider. In fact, you suspect that the wheat might not even as good as it used be when you first started buying it years ago. Despite all this, you insist that you're going to keep paying more and more for it each year. Doesn't make any sense, does it?



ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, those added costs are a great point, but again my example is of an older employee who would actually be much cheaper to replace with a 25-year old kid out of college who is 10x quicker. And don't get me wrong, I've seen rounds of layoffs where the older expensive folks are let go out of necessity, but when the budget does not call for drastic action such as that, I have seen these older people be kept on board for a much higher salary simply because they have been loyal to the company for years.

These types of "seniority rewards" don't in any way exist in the world of commodities.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
The point that I was making is that my company - so long as this person is doing their job - will give him/her a raise based solely on seniority and length of employment with the company. The extra money is not awarded for any sort of skill or experience increase.

I see this ALL the time too; the older lady who is not so great at computers and on her way to retirement is getting paid 35% more than the 28 year old - who got hired onto the position 2 years ago - who's much faster, quicker, and (lets say for this example) a more valuable employee in the eyes of management. Both the old lady and the 28 year old hold the same position which requires the same skills.

If labor = a commodity, this type of thing wouldn't fly at all because it wouldn't make sense. The company's paying more for the 'less valuable' product?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there is a labor agreement in place. If that's the case, it may not be stated, but they are assuming that experience = increased production. In addition, labor agreements are designed to benefit the employee.





Nope, same wheat, same provider. In fact, you suspect that the wheat might not even as good as it used be when you first started buying it years ago. Despite all this, you insist that you're going to keep paying more and more for it each year. Doesn't make any sense, does it?
Click to expand...

Nope. Fire them. That's what happens in the labor market if there is no contract. Contracts change the dynamics. I get the feeling you are comparing a free labor market to a labor agreement and that doesn't fly.





Sure, those added costs are a great point, but again my example is of an older employee who would actually be much cheaper to replace with a 25-year old kid out of college who is 10x quicker. And don't get me wrong, I've seen rounds of layoffs where the older expensive folks are let go out of necessity, but when the budget does not call for drastic action such as that, I have seen these older people be kept on board for a much higher salary simply because they have been loyal to the company for years.
Click to expand...

Well, the labor market isn't exactly like other commodities in that there are loyalties to individuals. Although, there can be loyalties to products. The best example is the old feud between Ford and Chevy owners. They had brand loyalty that led them to purchase vehicles that may have been over priced or poorly produced.

Even if there are some differences between labor and product, the similarities are too great to dismiss.

These types of "seniority rewards" don't in any way exist in the world of commodities (which I can think of).
Click to expand...

So? How is that important?
 
ksu_aviator said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there is a labor agreement in place. If that's the case, it may not be stated, but they are assuming that experience = increased production. In addition, labor agreements are designed to benefit the employee.
Click to expand...

Well, let me just say that it's pretty clear to management that these people aren't getting any more productive after a certain point (and maybe even getting less productive), yet they continue to get paid more money than the young guns in the same position who are clearly more productive to management.

I think that in an implicit way, the company is taking care of those who have put many years of loyalty by paying them more money, not because they are assuming that with each year of experience = increased production.

When the company knows that these people are not gaining experience after a certain point, yet is continuing to pay them 35% more than a younger person in the same role, what's the motivation to offer a labor agreement if the assumption that experience = increased production no longer holds true in this case?



ksu_aviator said:
Well, the labor market isn't exactly like other commodities in that there are loyalties to individuals. Although, there can be loyalties to products. The best example is the old feud between Ford and Chevy owners. They had brand loyalty that led them to purchase vehicles that may have been over priced or poorly produced.
Click to expand...

I don't know KSU. For one thing cars =/= commodities, and for that reason it's easy for me to think of brand loyalty when talking about a product like Lazyboy's vs something like salt which is virtually exactly the same wherever you get it from.



ksu_aviator said:
So? How is that important?
Click to expand...

Look. I understand that especially in the low skilled world labor is going to be treated 'like' a commodity at times and certainly can see the relation. If 600 people can turn a lever 500x a day for $40, why employ the guy who's demanding you pay him $60. But we're missing a key element of my argument here.

Do we want to perpetuate the idea that labor should be treated like a commodity and wages should be continually worked downwards, or should we consider this idea that perhaps people and the labor they provide are something just a bit different than just sugar or a bottle, ect, and embrace an idea that a company can be treated a bit more like a 'community' when fiscally possible.

Perhaps if companies take care of people a little better, the gov't might not have to.

Also, I realize that this is not a fantasy fairy world of glitter and that companies are not in business for the purpose of taking care of their workers, and that it's just not possible to keep paying a premium to people just because they're older and have been with the company a long time - I get that.

However, when it is possible, and perhaps before the CEO decides to give himself a big raise/bonus/whatever, perhaps he/she can pass up on that raise and let a little bit of those profits trickle down to a loyal worker, creating a wage that is slightly more than what the worker is worth on a purely economic standpoint.

Realize I'm ranting vs debating, time for bed!
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
Well, let me just say that it's pretty clear to management that these people aren't getting any more productive after a certain point (and maybe even getting less productive), yet they continue to get paid more money than the young guns in the same position who are clearly more productive to management.

I think that in an implicit way, the company is taking care of those who have put many years of loyalty by paying them more money, not because they are assuming that with each year of experience = increased production.

When the company knows that these people are not gaining experience after a certain point, yet is continuing to pay them 35% more than a younger person in the same role, what's the motivation to offer a labor agreement if the assumption that experience = increased production no longer holds true in this case?





I don't know KSU. For one thing cars =/= commodities, and for that reason it's easy for me to think of brand loyalty when talking about a product like Lazyboy's vs something like salt which is virtually exactly the same wherever you get it from.





Look. I understand that especially in the low skilled world labor is going to be treated 'like' a commodity at times and certainly can see the relation. If 600 people can turn a lever 500x a day for $40, why employ the guy who's demanding you pay him $60. But we're missing a key element of my argument here.

Do we want to perpetuate the idea that labor should be treated like a commodity and wages should be continually worked downwards, or should we consider this idea that perhaps people and the labor they provide are something just a bit different than just sugar or a bottle, ect, and embrace an idea that a company can be treated a bit more like a 'community' when fiscally possible.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that wages would continually work downwards? Has any commodity gotten cheaper over the years? Have products gotten cheaper over the years? No. If labor was treated exactly like a commodity, wouldn't it increase in cost just like other commodities?


Perhaps if companies take care of people a little better, the gov't might not have to.

Also, I realize that this is not a fantasy fairy world of glitter and that companies are not in business for the purpose of taking care of their workers, and that it's just not possible to keep paying a premium to people just because they're older and have been with the company a long time - I get that.

However, when it is possible, and perhaps before the CEO decides to give himself a big raise/bonus/whatever, perhaps he/she can pass up on that raise and let a little bit of those profits trickle down to a loyal worker, creating a wage that is slightly more than what the worker is worth on a purely economic standpoint.

Realize I'm ranting vs debating, time for bed!
Click to expand...

Ah, the fantasy world of glitter and business...oh what a dream ;)
 
teamosil said:
By those who think they are entitled to the wealth of others you mean rich investors who don't create wealth themselves, but feel entitled to it, right?
Click to expand...
I was reading your post and thinking about our situation. By many standards we meet the criteria for rich. I was drafted into the Army, but I escaped and spent 4 years in the Air Farce instead. I worked in industry for 30 years for decent salary, but only received small bonuses for very many useful, creative, innovative patentable (I have over 10) developments. After a RIF at 55, I started doing my own work with my inherited commercial land and my residential real-estate. I also did stock trading; I was a contrarian, e.g. bought BP after the blowout sold on recovery, and did very well. Now we have a firm handle most of our investments. Some of our investments do create wealth, e.g. CD’s; but, some don’t e.g. my BP trades and a commercial property sale that just moved money from someone else’s pocket to ours. I do feel I earned to my wealth, not entitled to it. And we have no trouble with what earnings of ours went to support SS (I’m getting checks.), Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, the forced ‘savings’ of SS by some retired family members is now providing checks to them, so we don’t have to support them as much as we would have to without SS. Again, we come out ahead because they were forced to ‘save’.

Is my minority opinion rational?
 
TurtleDude said:
even parasitic scumbags can be right on some issues!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but both you and your communist friends are incorrect. Labor is human activity. Yes it can be bought and sold within the context of time, wage, and productivity; but thinking of it in these terms just confuses the differences. A man who has a new born child on the way can become motivated more so than he was, causing his real value of labor to increase. However, a commodity such as corn is not motivated to become "cornier", and therefore more valuable. A commodity such as corn differs in value based on the level (in terms of productivity and focus) of labor required to create it.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
I wonder where I got that idea:





First, no its not. Second, I don't accept the assertion/implication that that is the case in today's workforce.



No it is not. The day is NOT spent working solely for the benefit of another. That would presume that no wage was earned, and we know that is not the case. If it was, it would be slavery. As it stands, people have the freedom to chose to work or not work.



No they are not. They may not like their choices, but being unhappy with your choices does not make you a slave.



That may actually be slavery, but you failed to prove that is even happening or that that is in any way related to the labor market in the US.



Dude? LOL..whatever...Dude. We aren't talking about outside the US. This is a forum about US politics. If you want to talk about slavery on the international stage, try starting another thread.



Well, I was using the word to describe a false notion...what do you think a fallacy is? You see, I saw your assertion that "people are being bought and sold" as a description of labor and since I know that people have the freedom to chose which jobs they accept and which they don't and that they are selling their time and not their person so I called it a fallacy because it was a false notion.
Click to expand...

Number four from your cite: wage slavery.

For more on this, look up "company store". Load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't call me cuz I can't go. I owe my sould to the company store.

Chains can be forged of laws and debt actually more easily than of steel. And wage slavery is superior to chattel slavery from a business standpoint, as it turns livestock upkeep from a cost to an income stream by making ones slaves responsible for their own upkeep.

Not fantasy or conspiracy. History and anthropology.
 
liblady said:
semantics. practically, labor is a commodity.
Click to expand...

Is the work an automated forklift does a commodity? This is a serious question.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Is the work a an automated forklift a commodity? This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that would be the forklift itself. Its useful life calculated into its initial value. As well as maintenance, etc.

However, people do rent things like that to others, so I'm not sure how that fits.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Is the work a an automated forklift a commodity? This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

it could be, i think. do commodities have to be physical? is it enough that they can be bought and sold regardless of the form they take?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I disagree. IMO, labor is a form of capital, not a commodity.
Click to expand...

There was a post/thread here about an economist who wanted to include capital itself into the input/output considerations. Frankly, its so obvious that capital performs work that I was amazed it wasn't already.
 
liblady said:
it could be, i think. do commodities have to be physical? is it enough that they can be bought and sold regardless of the form they take?
Click to expand...

How does one define commodity?

Gold is a commodity, yes? But is a gold necklace with the shape of the Cash Money emblem a commodity?

Corn is a commodity, yes? But is a tortilla a commodity?

I believe there are significant distinctions between commodities and capital.
 
What if...? said:
There was a post/thread here about an economist who wanted to include capital itself into the input/output considerations. Frankly, its so obvious that capital performs work that I was amazed it wasn't already.
Click to expand...

From what i know, capital is included into input/output considerations.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
From what i know, capital is included into input/output considerations.
Click to expand...

It was Louis Kelso. I have the pdf "what louis kelso knew".

I'm no expert on economics, but the piece was very interesting.

I'll have to re read it, but it was something to the effect that capital doesn't do "work" I believe.

You obviously know more about the subject than I do. I would like to know what you think. (I'm pretty busy and don't have time to reread it right this second, but will as soon as I get a chance today)
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
It was Louis Kelso. I have the pdf "what louis kelso knew".

I'm no expert on economics, but the piece was very interesting.
Click to expand...

The basic isocost analysis is based upon varying output at different labor/capital ratio's holding commodity input costs constant. I wouldn't mind looking at the PDF.

Edit: Kelso was technically (imo) a socialist.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
What is it exactly are you stating when you say:

Capital has been included into input/output considerations.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'll have to re-read it, but what I remember is that it was about capitals "role" in calculations. That it doesn't "perform work" in those calculations the way labor does, even though they are similar in what they actually do irl.

Let me read it and I'll get back to you.

I'm real good with concepts, but don't have the "language" for economics, so have some difficulty expressing myself to those who do. It stuck with me as something of note, so I'm sure I have a reason!

(Even "friendly" economics guys dismiss my questions sometimes because they sound more ignorant than they are because I lack the language/referents. So bear with me.)
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
Why would you assume that wages would continually work downwards? Has any commodity gotten cheaper over the years? Have products gotten cheaper over the years? No. If labor was treated exactly like a commodity, wouldn't it increase in cost just like other commodities?
Click to expand...

I could have worded this better, as I was referring to the “give room” which would be driven to 0, or in my example the added “seniority” compensation would be eliminated if labor were to be treated simply like a commodity, and the employee would be paid closest to the going market rate for the skill he/she is providing as possible – always.

No perks like if making a higher salary if in a position longer than someone else (when assumption is that the person probably isn’t going to get any more skillful with added years).
 
Last edited:
Depends on how your community values/uses it. To the Puritans, labor kept sin at bay and was a duty to God. That essence of labor for them was a religious exercise, not a capitalist enterprise.

Many cultures have been of different opinions about the nature of labor.

As a Christian-of-sorts, I tend to be more sympathetic toward the spiritual benefits of labor than the economic ones. However, that belief is not generally maintained in the United States, and for all intents and purposes we have forced labor to function as a commodity, against what is perhaps its better nature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom