• 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
Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Just to be clear, I'm speaking of labor provided by individuals, not labor as jobs offered by companies.

What is the essence of labor? Is it a commodity, or is it a the product of commodities invested by an individual such as time and energy?

Or maybe you have another view or philosophy you'd like to share on the subject of labor.

Please try to support your positions with quotes, links, citations, historical precedent, etc... Personal opinions are little more than anecdotal without knowing how and why you draw the conclusions you do.
 
Last edited:
Occam's Razor said:
Just to be clear, I'm speaking of labor provided by individuals, not labor as jobs offered by companies.

What is the essence of labor? Is it a commodity, or is it a the product of commodities invested by an individual such as time and energy?
Click to expand...

The debate would have been more fun if you opened it up. Labor in and of itself is not a commodity. If you broaden the Op you create all kinds of lively viewpoints. :)
 
Michael H said:
The debate would have been more fun if you opened it up. Labor in and of itself is not a commodity. If you broaden the Op you create all kinds of lively viewpoints. :)
Click to expand...

As stated in the third and fourth poll options, it's entirely open... Go for it!
 
Of course it's a commodity. Labor is trading one's skills and work for a wage offered by someone else. It is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it, nothing more, nothing less. The more skilled a person is and the more valuable their skills are, the more they deserve to earn for their work.

Not sure why this is even a question.
 
Cephus said:
Of course it's a commodity. Labor is trading one's skills and work for a wage offered by someone else. It is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it, nothing more, nothing less. The more skilled a person is and the more valuable their skills are, the more they deserve to earn for their work.

Not sure why this is even a question.
Click to expand...

If you're confused about the question... Stay tuned...

And of course pay rises with skills and knowledge, that is not the issue.
 
Occam's Razor said:
As stated in the third and fourth poll options, it's entirely open... Go for it!
Click to expand...

I think labor has been made a commodity by vested interests. Control of banking and wealth has allowed for markets to be undeveloped / underdeveloped. This can be reasoned for a control of resources, using a market solely for export of goods, nationalistic protective interests, or limiting market growth to create a cheap labor markets. Whatever the reason labor becomes a barge-able market, where the single relationship of skill for compensation no longer applies, and control of jobs becomes the driving factor in compensation. By limiting job creation ... one may "corner" the market like a commodity.
 
Of course I understood the question as you asked it. You asserted, I presume, that labor is not a commodity and people deserve a "living wage", whatever that is. However, in your last post, you said that pay raises with skills and knowledge, thus proving that labor *IS* a commodity! If it was not, then everyone would get the same pay for performing work. It's not just the work that matters, but the skill and knowledge involved in said work, the rarity of those qualified to perform such work, etc.

Thus, it is a commodity.
 
Throughout my lifetime, I have had small boodles of money show up that must be spent. I have always chosen my friends that were on hard times or individuals I wanted to share with. This was not a gift to any of them, but they were paid at a premium for their labor. I never felt it was a commodity, just my good fortune to have an opportunity to help a friend. I think it happens more than you would figure and most don't want bragging rights, just feel good inside because they were blessed with the opportunity.
 
Cephus said:
Of course I understood the question as you asked it. You asserted, I presume, that labor is not a commodity and people deserve a "living wage", whatever that is. However, in your last post, you said that pay raises with skills and knowledge, thus proving that labor *IS* a commodity! If it was not, then everyone would get the same pay for performing work. It's not just the work that matters, but the skill and knowledge involved in said work, the rarity of those qualified to perform such work, etc.

Thus, it is a commodity.
Click to expand...

No... the knowledge and skills are a commodity... not the labor.

Tell me, when an hourly worker goes over 40 hours a week, their pay suddenly goes up by fifty percent. Did their skills increase? Their knowledge? Did their job suddenly become more rare? No. It's because it requires more sacrifice of the time of life, taking away from family and leisure.
 
Occam's Razor said:
No... the knowledge and skills are a commodity... not the labor.

Tell me, when an hourly worker goes over 40 hours a week, their pay suddenly goes up by fifty percent. Did their skills increase? Their knowledge? Did their job suddenly become more rare? No. It's because it requires more sacrifice of the time of life, taking away from family and leisure.
Click to expand...

Labor doesn't have a history of performing like a commodity either. Commodities rise and fall over time ... which wages haven't. That's being worked on though.
 
Occam's Razor said:
No... the knowledge and skills are a commodity... not the labor.

Tell me, when an hourly worker goes over 40 hours a week, their pay suddenly goes up by fifty percent. Did their skills increase? Their knowledge? Did their job suddenly become more rare? No. It's because it requires more sacrifice of the time of life, taking away from family and leisure.
Click to expand...

No, but you're talking about labor laws, not the concept of labor. Minimum wage laws, work safety laws, etc. really have nothing to do with the market value of labor.
 
Of course it is a commodity. Many lefties think the market should not apply to this commodity and labor should be priced according to the needs of the laborer rather than supply and demand
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course it is a commodity. Many lefties think the market should not apply to this commodity and labor should be priced according to the needs of the laborer rather than supply and demand
Click to expand...

Communists often refer to the commodity of labor.
 
Without workers/labor there would be no society to be found.
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course it is a commodity. Many lefties think the market should not apply to this commodity and labor should be priced according to the needs of the laborer rather than supply and demand
Click to expand...

I know! It's shocking, isn't it? The idea that people should actually be able to survive on the job they're able to get, or maybe even have a luxury or two! Clearly a small percentage of people getting obscenely wealthy is the nobler goal.
 
atrasicarius said:
I know! It's shocking, isn't it? The idea that people should actually be able to survive on the job they're able to get, or maybe even have a luxury or two! Clearly a small percentage of people getting obscenely wealthy is the nobler goal.
Click to expand...

Not as amazing as the idea that people ought to be responsible enough to get an education, training and learn job skills that will allow them to make the living they'd like to make. The very idea that people ought to LEARN anything... imagine that!
 
atrasicarius said:
I know! It's shocking, isn't it? The idea that people should actually be able to survive on the job they're able to get, or maybe even have a luxury or two! Clearly a small percentage of people getting obscenely wealthy is the nobler goal.
Click to expand...

spare me the psychobabble. The market sets wages. If someone has skills that only bring 7 dollars an hour

1) whose fault is that

2) why would an employer pay him 20 an hour when other employers can get equally skilled labor for less than half than that

3) "obscenely wealthy" people (wtf does that mean) aren't that way due to market rates of wages. Those people you think are too rich mainly are that rich because they start a business that takes off. The guys who started Google are not obscenely rich due to them underpaying workers. Same with Bill Gates. Your either or argument has no merit whatsoever
 
You ignore that the figure you name of $7 an hour was also influenced by the lowest amount permissible under law - the minimum wage.
 
haymarket said:
You ignore that the figure you name of $7 an hour was also influenced by the lowest amount permissible under law - the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

So? Some jobs may not be worth $7 an hour. Some may be so basic, so low-level that they may be worth mere cents in a truly free market. I really have no problem with a minimum wage. It is an entirely artificial increase in all labor to a basic minimum level, that doesn't mean that the free market doesn't work, just that it's been slightly modified. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be something you can live on, they are meant to be a starting job where you can gain experience and skills and get better jobs down the road.

So what's wrong with people who are trying to raise families on minimum wage? Where did they go wrong?
 
haymarket said:
You ignore that the figure you name of $7 an hour was also influenced by the lowest amount permissible under law - the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

That's being contrarian

Lets use 8 an hour

point remains
 
Cephus said:
Not as amazing as the idea that people ought to be responsible enough to get an education, training and learn job skills that will allow them to make the living they'd like to make. The very idea that people ought to LEARN anything... imagine that!
Click to expand...

Well, an education system that actually teaches things might help with that.
 
atrasicarius said:
Well, an education system that actually teaches things might help with that.
Click to expand...
agreed

we don't need political correctness or how to put a condom on a cucumber or history lessons about lesbian native american contributions to say modern medicine. we need to teach skills and trades.
 
atrasicarius said:
Well, an education system that actually teaches things might help with that.
Click to expand...

While I'll be the first to say we need to improve our educational system, the fact that in many areas, there's a greater than 50% drop out rate certainly doesn't help. The fact that many parents are ignorant and therefore don't push their kids to get an education is a huge problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom