 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:21
|
|
So why can't the same argument be given to labour? Labour is needed. Labour is just a parameter to the making of whatever product/service.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:21
|
|
So? The labour to build and maintain those machines just exist. What makes you think there is a utility value involved?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:21
|
|
Land helps creates things. Just like labour does. Labour helps create things usually existing raw materials/land/whatever else goes into the product.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:21
|
|
Do you define peoples perception as smoke and mirrors?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
OK, just making sure you could at least see that point - you were implying otherwise, at least as I understood you.
quote: Labor builds and maintains the machines. |
So do you claim that being paid a wage to maintain someone else's machine should give you a share in the ownership of what the machine produces?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
As an aside, then, would it be fair to give them a share in the ownership, and not pay them a wage? Sounds like giving them both is double dipping...
In any case, the point of a wage is to compensate someone for labor performed, in this case, maintaining machines. Sure, in this case, without the people to maintain the machines, the machines could not function, but that doesn't automatically confer ownership to the maintenance guy - all it does is entitle him to negotiate for a wage in exchange for labor. If he believes that his wage should include an ownership stake, then he'll simply be out of a job and someone else will be hired, who negotiates more reasonably. Remember, without the machine, the maintenance guy wouldn't have a job. Computers need computer techs, but computer techs also need computers (sure, they could hypothetically do something else, but whatever that "something else" is, they still need it). Strikes me as sort of a wash:
1)Man invests capital to build machine
2)Man realizes he needs a specialist to maintain machine
3)Specialist needs job
4)Man decides that the value of a working machine outweighs the value of the probable wage he will pay the specialist
5)Specialist decides that the value he sees in his wage is sufficient to justify maintaining the machine.
Why should the specialist get anything further than a wage? It really isn't fair - his wage already compensates him for his labor.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:21
|
|
quote: What are you trying to do to me? I'm very tired. I can't figure that out right now.
I'll talk to you tomorrow. |
Cool cool. Make sure you do. Have a good sleep.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: There's nothing really wrong with your argument, but I just don't want to respond to it in detail unless you can connect it to the debate as to whether money creates value. |
My argument was an example of how value is created by perceptions - the specialist saw a value in accepting a wage to do a job.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|