Is labour a commodity?

[miked]

I am studying International Labour Law and the research essay topic is "Labour is not a commodity. Discuss." The Labour arm of the United Nations, The Internaitonal Labour Organisation (ILO), has this as one of its tenents in the Declaration of Philadelphia. One of the main goals of the ILO is to have nations ratify their labour laws and put them into legal force.

 

The argument is that human labour is not a commodity and thus should not be treated like a commodity would - e.g. fungible, transferrable, expendable. Human labour is part of human life and humans should be able to be employed and be able to live with dignity.

 

Would an anarcho-capitalist argue that human labour is indeed a commodity - humans have human capital and social capital that they use to produce goods and services for income. The onus is on the human to develop circumstances where they are able to enjoy their life with dignity.

 

I have read a bit of Lysander Spooner on his thesis that control of money and usery by the State is what keeps people from borrowing capital and being self-employed. I think this angle would be interesting to explore - how the legal system keeps people in a relationship of employment.

 

Does anyone have any sources that could help?

 

Cheers

Michael

 

[LovePrevails]

probably a service rather than a commodity

[Pepin]

I am unsure about this as the question feels rather factious. I get the impression that the question is coming from a particular philosophical view that is not valid.

[TDB]

The argument is that human labour is not a commodity and thus should not be treated like a commodity would - e.g. fungible, transferrable, expendable. Human labour is part of human life and humans should be able to be employed and be able to live with dignity.

 

Would an anarcho-capitalist argue that human labour is indeed a commodity - humans have human capital and social capital that they use to produce goods and services for income. The onus is on the human to develop circumstances where they are able to enjoy their life with dignity.

 

Does anyone have any sources that could help?

 

Cheers

Michael

No sources, sorry. I don't think ancaps need to argue that labor is a commodity. (Depends on your definition of commodity? Certainly you can't have a carload of labor like you can have a carload of pork bellies.)

 

But more importantly, I don't see any necessary connection between "labor is not a commodity" and ... whatever it is they're trying to conclude? That employers should treat their employees with dignity? What does that necessarily mean? Seems to me they need to say a lot more, which either they left out of their argument or you neglected to mention. Are they saying labor is not or should not be a good traded on the market? Plenty of market goods, including labor, are not commodities. So?

 

Are they citing any philosopher, economist, anthropologist, sociologist, or internet rant as the source of this idea? If so, you can probably find someone trying to rebut the original source with a google search or a trip to the library. 

[miked]

I personally sense the distinction whether labour is or is not a commodity is irrelevant - it is the implication that arises when it is spouted by a governmental body that is of consequence. The implication is that the governmental body will want to insist that labour should not be treated as a commodity, and so there should be government intervention in the labour market, whether labour is indeed a commodity or not. Woodrow Wilson had a hand in the formation of the ILO which was founded at the same time as the UN.

 

I'm thinking of framing the scope of the essay anlong these lines:

 

"As a question of definition, whether ‘labour is not a commodity’ is a matter for debate in the fields of economic and social theory. This  assertion of definition emanating from a governmental organization, however, carries with it the implication that 'to counteract free-market forces, force and coercion sanctioned by a governmental body are necessary in the labour market to prevent humans from being treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources.' It is the purported legal validity of this implication that is the subject of this essay."

 

A few notes on the views of various legal theorists on the issue:

 

Burke seems to argue labour is a commodity that can be traded.

 

Marx argues there is a difference between labour done and the potential for labour or "labour-power" - he regards the labour-power pool as a community resource and not a commodity. Once labour is performed it is expended, so it is not like other commodities, and people are pressured to spend their time labouring - I couldn't really make heads and tails of the theory.

 

Those who argue for state intervention in ensuring minimum standards of labour seem to want labour recognised as not a commodity because "people should not be treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources." Wikipedia I'm not sure where the justification for this belief comes from yet.

 

Lysander Spooner would likely argue that labour is a commodity and government should not interfere with the contracts freely made to trade labour. He also argues a contract to enslave yourself to someone else would be null and void because it violates natual law principles that you cannot contract out your innate rights to self-ownership. (Letter to Grover Cleveland) He had a particular gripe against the licensing of particular professions, including requirements in his own profession, law.

[Rollout]

I personally sense the distinction whether labour is or is not a commodity is irrelevant - it is the implication that arises when it is spouted by a governmental body that is of consequence. The implication is that the governmental body will want to insist that labour should not be treated as a commodity, and so there should be government intervention in the labour market, whether labour is indeed a commodity or not. Woodrow Wilson had a hand in the formation of the ILO which was founded at the same time as the UN. I'm thinking of framing the scope of the essay anlong these lines: "As a question of definition, whether ‘labour is not a commodity’ is a matter for debate in the fields of economic and social theory. This  assertion of definition emanating from a governmental organization, however, carries with it the implication that 'to counteract free-market forces, force and coercion sanctioned by a governmental body re necessary in the labour market to prevent humans from being treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources.' It is the purported legal validity of this implication that is the subject of this essay." A few notes on the views of various legal theorists on the issue: Burke seems to argue labour is a commodity that can be traded. Marx argues there is a difference between labour done and the potential for labour or "labour-power" - he regards the labour-power pool as a community resource and not a commodity. Once labour is performed it is expended, so it is not like other commodities, and people are pressured to spend their time labouring - I couldn't really make heads and tails of the theory. Those who argue for state intervention in ensuring minimum standards of labour seem to want labour recognised as not a commodity because "people should not be treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources." Wikipedia I'm not sure where the justification for this belief comes from yet. Lysander Spooner would likely argue that labour is a commodity and government should not interfere with the contracts freely made to trade labour. He also argues a contract to enslave yourself to someone else would be null and void because it violates natual law principles that you cannot contract out your innate rights to self-ownership. (Letter to Grover Cleveland) He had a particular gripe against the licensing of particular professions, including requirements in his own profession, law.

By the way you're using the term commodity, yes labor is a commodity. Labor is affected by the same economic forces as other factors of production and should be treated as such. For example, minimum wage laws act upon the labor supply in the same way a minimum price law would act on the supply of a different commodity. Effective price floors cause excesses in supply. In the case of labor an excess supply means unemployment. For a different commodity like copper or gold it would also result in excess supply, i.e., unused resources. Wages can't be mandated by the state without bad consequences just like price controls on anything else result in either surpluses or shortages, depending on the type of price control, either a minimum or maximum.

[st434u]

Like others said, labor is not a commodity, in the same way that a chair is not a commodity (it is a manufactured product), and a haircut is not a commodity (it is a service). These are economic terms that are used to broadly categorize items due to the nature of their role in the economy. I short, labor is not a commodity, labor is labor.

 

However, the govt saying that "labor is not a commodity, therefore we should not allow it be freely exchanged, the way we allow commodities to be traded" is a senseless argument at best, and an evil manipulation at worst.

 

If you want to hurt labor, then you put restrictions on it's exchange and contracting. Which is what they want to do.

[Rollout]

Like others said, labor is not a commodity, in the same way that a chair is not a commodity (it is a manufactured product), and a haircut is not a commodity (it is a service). These are economic terms that are used to broadly categorize items due to the nature of their role in the economy. I short, labor is not a commodity, labor is labor. However, the govt saying that "labor is not a commodity, therefore we should not allow it be freely exchanged, the way we allow commodities to be traded" is a senseless argument at best, and an evil manipulation at worst. If you want to hurt labor, then you put restrictions on it's exchange and contracting. Which is what they want to do.

Actually a chair can be a commodity, any good can be as long as there's sufficient uniformity of that particular good across its supply base. Services are also commodities in the term's most broad sense.From wiki.

In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.[1] Economic commodities comprise goods and services.[2]

In any case, you're missing the point of his question. What he's really asking is if labor is a factor of production, and therefore should be treated the same way as other factors, such as commodities. The answer is yes. Economically speaking there's no difference. The same laws apply to it that apply to other factors.

[PatrickC]

Like so many of these kinds of debates, it all comes down to thrashing out the deffinitions, rather than getting stuck on whether one definition is more correct than another.

 

People can become emotionally attached to the meaning of words, which can distract them from making a cogent argument.

[2bits]

More from Wikipedia:

"The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them."

 

While not the convention, it would be easy to apply this definition to services and labor. Any labor that is independent of a specific worker's skills could be a commodity. Examples would include low/no skill jobs, and higher skill jobs where the duties were sufficiently consistent to allow some worker fungibility.

 

The free market will treat labor costs like any other good/service and set the price accordingly. Denying commodity status to labor only justifies government wage controls. This is done ostensibly to preserve the value of human life and dignity, but what socialists always ignore is the hidden costs of lower employment and higher prices throughout the economy.

 

Any text by an Austrian economist (Hyack, Rothbart, Mises) will have solid arguments against artificial price controls (goods/services/wages/etc). IMHO Rothbart's "Man, Economy, and State" is great for this topic.

[Rollout]

More from Wikipedia:"The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them."While not the convention, it would be easy to apply this definition to services and labor. Any labor that is independent of a specific worker's skills could be a commodity. Examples would include low/no skill jobs, and higher skill jobs where the duties were sufficiently consistent to allow some worker fungibility.The free market will treat labor costs like any other good/service and set the price accordingly. Denying commodity status to labor only justifies government wage controls. This is done ostensibly to preserve the value of human life and dignity, but what socialists always ignore is the hidden costs of lower employment and higher prices throughout the economy.Any text by an Austrian economist (Hyack, Rothbart, Mises) will have solid arguments against artificial price controls (goods/services/wages/etc). IMHO Rothbart's "Man, Economy, and State" is great for this topic.

Agreed, and to add a little more. Wages are determined in the same way any other price is determined for a factor of production. Each factor tends to receive, in Austrian terms, it's DMVP (discounted marginal value product). This is true for machines, land, commodities, etc. And all are affected by supply and demand the same way.

[Guest Don C]

I have read a bit of Lysander Spooner on his thesis that control of money and usery by the State is what keeps people from borrowing capital and being self-employed. I think this angle would be interesting to explore - how the legal system keeps people in a relationship of employment.

 

Does anyone have any sources that could help?

 

 

 

c4ss.org is a good place to start. They have a youtube channel. I found them through an interview Stefan did with http://www.youtube.com/user/Libertymindedvideos.

Left-libertarians/market-anarchists talk about this stuff almost exclusively. Specifically, how the state kicks people off the land they have worked for generations, which forces them into wage-slavery. (For the record, I agree with them about the 'vulgarity' of implying the people of Bengladesh, for instance, are better off because of sweat shops. Yes, it's better than starving to death, but there are underlying reasons that they would starve in the first place. It just may be true the state in collusion with corporations, sets the problem up to begin with.)

[Josh F]

Yeah, it is a commodity, that is why you pay for labor.  If it wasn't a commodity, it would be free.  And free labor is slavery. 

[Guest Don C]

The argument is that human labour is not a commodity and thus should not be treated like a commodity would - e.g. fungible, transferrable, expendable. Human labour is part of human life and humans should be able to be employed and be able to live with dignity.

 

 

I don't know what the answer is exactly, but here is a link to the study guide of Mises' Human Action

http://mises.org/daily/2955/

Why It Matters

In this chapter Mises explains the supply of and demand for labor, and the principles determining market wage rates. In this respect the analysis is conventional and not idiosyncratically "Austrian." However, in his historical observations, Mises is very unconventional. He credits the Industrial Revolution with improving the lot of the average worker, and explains that unbridled capitalism — in which labor is bought and sold as a commodity — spelled the doom of slavery.

[miked]

Hey I ended up writing the essay and received 82/100. I explored a statist approach, a Marxist approach, and an Anarcho-capitalist approach to labour laws.

 

It's not 100% polished but I got some feedback that it is well-researched and that I missed out the origins of the labour movement in Europe. If you are doing similar research feel free to check out my citations and read from there.

 

I tried to make it objective and tried to be critical of the State involvement in the proliferation of labour rights, since most of the papers I came across always resorted to a State solution. I guess I have to note that my opinions are probably different to the various view-points put forward in the essay.

 

Mike

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR LAW - RESEARCH ESSAY MDM (SUBMITTED).pdf