The Structural Violence of Wage Slavery

[dsayers]

If the concept of debt is misrepresented then it's in fact fraud.

 

So? Fraud is cooperational. If I have a car lot and you come onto my lot, spot a blue car, and say you want it on the basis that it is blue and then the engine seizes up because it had no oil in it, would that be my fault? Or is it your responsibility when choosing to buy/own/operate a car to ensure its maintenance?

 

If I said I'll sell you a dangfur for $10, what would you say? I mean, if a dangfur is worth $100, that's a pretty sweet deal! Are you going to agree to the trade on the possibility that you might profit from the exchange? Or are you going to take the time to educate yourself on what a dangfur is before entering a trade for one? And if you do not, could I be said to be acting immorally for selling you a dangfur for $10 when they're in fact only worth $1?

[cobra2411]

So? Fraud is cooperational. If I have a car lot and you come onto my lot, spot a blue car, and say you want it on the basis that it is blue and then the engine seizes up because it had no oil in it, would that be my fault? Or is it your responsibility when choosing to buy/own/operate a car to ensure its maintenance?

 

If I said I'll sell you a dangfur for $10, what would you say? I mean, if a dangfur is worth $100, that's a pretty sweet deal! Are you going to agree to the trade on the possibility that you might profit from the exchange? Or are you going to take the time to educate yourself on what a dangfur is before entering a trade for one? And if you do not, could I be said to be acting immorally for selling you a dangfur for $10 when they're in fact only worth $1?

 

I'm having fun digging though all this because at times the world we live in and the world we should live in are polar opposites and at times they are very closely aligned and when you start to mash all that together it can get difficult to pull it back apart to make sense of it all. 

 

You come to me to buy a car and I sell it with the promise that everything is ok and looked after. If it later turns out that I never even lifted the hood am I liable because you took me on my work. In today's world absolutely as you are presenting yourself as an expert or authoritative source. In a stateless society I suspect DRO's would have similar functions otherwise we'd all have to be experts on everything. 

 

Ok, forget the state; at what point does your misuse of superior knowledge remove or alter a person's personal responsibility to protect themselves? The answer may be never, I haven't really put much thought to it other than current society does define a point. 

[dsayers]

otherwise we'd all have to be experts on everything. 

 

I think you are exaggerating. Making an informed decision doesn't require you to be an expert. Going back to my car example, if you're going to shell out for a car, why am I more responsible for what you buy than you are? It's YOUR money.

[labmath2]

I think the idea people try to express when they say something like wage slave is exploitation of the weak. In an interview, Peter Schiff was talked about how the minimum wage law led to increased unemployment and when he was asked if there was any group he would pay $2.00 and hour to, he said "mentally retarded." While i see the economic genius in doing such a thing (since they would most likely not get a job otherwise and so $2.00 an hour is the most they can hope for), i cannot help but cringe at the thought of the idea. Many people who worked at a job they hated know the only reason they did not leave as soon as it became uncomfortable for them is because they would be worse off by leaving the job. As long as supply for a service is greater than demand for the service, workers will have to bend to their employers will. I think about the push of mass media for everyone to learn programming that is going on now and i am almost certain they are trying to flood the market with programmers so they can pay them less than they are currently playing them now.

[dsayers]

As long as supply for a service is greater than demand for the service, workers will have to bend to their employers will.

 

No more than their employers have to bend to the will of their customers. That you don't address this point kind of indicates a lack of integrity.

 

I don't make a million dollars a year. It's because I haven't invested in my human capital to be worth a million dollars a year. That's not my employer's fault or responsibility.

[labmath2]

No more than their employers have to bend to the will of their customers. That you don't address this point kind of indicates a lack of integrity.

 

I don't make a million dollars a year. It's because I haven't invested in my human capital to be worth a million dollars a year. That's not my employer's fault or responsibility.

Sometimes they do not have to deal with customers since they hired workers to do that in their place, they simply manage.

[dsayers]

Like managing is so simple.

 

Provide for me please one example of a company where the lowest rung are slaves and the upper rungs serve nobody.

[LibertyDefender]

Simplified: If you and I are the only two on the planet and I create $100 that you want to borrow. I set the terms at 10% interest and say you can borrow the $100 and make low payments of $10 and pay it off over time. If you fail to pay it all back I take your stuff. Now, if you lack the understanding of the contract you are entering into then I have defrauded you and stolen your efforts as you try and pay back what can never be paid back.  Wouldn't that be slavery after the fact? 

 

Does the lender in this situation have the power to create money as implied in the generalized example? If this power isn't explicitly referenced in the original contract, then it would constitute fraud, "slavery after the fact" I think is largely irrelevant and a game in semantics. The fact that most people are or could be ignorant to the pitfalls of contracting is a more unique question, and would likely be covered by insurance directly or absored through financial/personal advisors willing to assume certain levels of liability as a form of consideration for contracting.

Ok, forget the state; at what point does your misuse of superior knowledge remove or alter a person's personal responsibility to protect themselves? The answer may be never, I haven't really put much thought to it other than current society does define a point. 

 

Sorry, missed this bit in my original post, but I understood where you were going. It is a very good conundrum to explore, but I think dsayers had an excellent point. Not trying to slam you or anything, but you may perhaps be exaggerating specialization. Sure, lots of technology and jobs are specialized now, but it doesn't mean you need a specialist to tell you whether to buy a house or not, though they may help in assessing pros and cons. Similarly (incapacitated people aside), even a doctor doesn't make the decision to operate on you or not -ultimately you make an informed decision with the help of their specialized knowledge. Sure, tons of specialty food growers, transportation specilaists, financial analysts and nurses might develop in a freeer market; but this is the point! They will all have to compete and provide better services or adivice for the lowest cost appropriate for their skill. If they abuse their customers or commit fraud, they will suffer the consequences of an economic boycott.

[LovePrevails]

Why is the Capitalist Workplace so Authoritarian?