- 02 Jan 2015 18:06
#14505789
No, I've already corrected that misstatement of what I plainly wrote. Labor is human effort devoted to production. Production is bringing a desirable good into existence or providing a desirable service.
No, you are apparently only happy when you are claiming I said something I did not say.
Yes, but you are conveniently "forgetting" that sometimes the reverse happened, or none of the latter would ever have gone broke, and none of the former would ever have stayed in business. So you are, absurdly and dishonestly, blaming the employers of children in unsafe conditions for not knowing, in advance, information on labor and product market conditions, production engineering, etc., that you know only with the benefit of centuries of hindsight. You are also absurdly blaming them for conducting their business according to the prevailing standards of the time, and not by modern standards they had no way of anticipating. It's just idiotic and dishonest.
No, what you have "forgotten" -- again -- is that I said no such thing. What I said was that unlike the landowner, the factory owner is MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO PRODUCTION. He is MAKING THE WORKERS BETTER OFF by providing them with access to opportunities to be much more productive than they could be on their own, opportunities that HE PROVIDES, and would not exist without his contributions. Why else would they deal with him? The landowner, by contrast, only makes others WORSE off, by first DEPRIVING THEM and then charging them for access to the opportunities and advantages government, the community, and nature provide.
You just have to refuse to know these self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.
But I already proved to you that it is: the cottage industry laborer owned his product directly, because he bought the work-in-progress and owned the capital he used to work on it. The wage laborer just exchanges his property right in the value he produces directly for wages, instead of having to buy and sell intermediate products (and buy expensive capital goods he can't afford), because it is much more efficient in the context of most modern production systems.
But there are many examples of workers who still exercise the option of owning their products directly, though others who do the same kind of work may opt to trade their ownership rights for wages. A photographer, for example, can work for a news syndicate for wages or own his own work as a freelancer. An artist can sell directly to buyers or work for wages at a design firm. Many farmers produce for their own account, while others work for wages at large agribusiness firms. Steve Jobs and his partner started out making computers themselves, by hand, in a garage, and owning them directly. The fact that the economics of modern factory production, mining, etc. often makes it very economically unattractive for wage laborers to own what they produce directly does not alter the fact that they still have that option, and that many workers exercise it when market conditions make it attractive to do so.
SueDeNîmes wrote:Oh I see. I'm forgetting that by "labour" and "production" you mean investment, however passive, whatever the money's provenance.
No, I've already corrected that misstatement of what I plainly wrote. Labor is human effort devoted to production. Production is bringing a desirable good into existence or providing a desirable service.
I'm still happy to leave that standing on its merits.
No, you are apparently only happy when you are claiming I said something I did not say.
IR employers of adults in safe conditions were, as they said at the time, undercut by employers of children in unsafe ones.
Yes, but you are conveniently "forgetting" that sometimes the reverse happened, or none of the latter would ever have gone broke, and none of the former would ever have stayed in business. So you are, absurdly and dishonestly, blaming the employers of children in unsafe conditions for not knowing, in advance, information on labor and product market conditions, production engineering, etc., that you know only with the benefit of centuries of hindsight. You are also absurdly blaming them for conducting their business according to the prevailing standards of the time, and not by modern standards they had no way of anticipating. It's just idiotic and dishonest.
And, no, I hadn't forgotten that you think land owners somehow make the latter philanthropists.
No, what you have "forgotten" -- again -- is that I said no such thing. What I said was that unlike the landowner, the factory owner is MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO PRODUCTION. He is MAKING THE WORKERS BETTER OFF by providing them with access to opportunities to be much more productive than they could be on their own, opportunities that HE PROVIDES, and would not exist without his contributions. Why else would they deal with him? The landowner, by contrast, only makes others WORSE off, by first DEPRIVING THEM and then charging them for access to the opportunities and advantages government, the community, and nature provide.
You just have to refuse to know these self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.
You repeat that wage-labourers trade ownership for wages. I repeat that ownership isn't on the table.
But I already proved to you that it is: the cottage industry laborer owned his product directly, because he bought the work-in-progress and owned the capital he used to work on it. The wage laborer just exchanges his property right in the value he produces directly for wages, instead of having to buy and sell intermediate products (and buy expensive capital goods he can't afford), because it is much more efficient in the context of most modern production systems.
But there are many examples of workers who still exercise the option of owning their products directly, though others who do the same kind of work may opt to trade their ownership rights for wages. A photographer, for example, can work for a news syndicate for wages or own his own work as a freelancer. An artist can sell directly to buyers or work for wages at a design firm. Many farmers produce for their own account, while others work for wages at large agribusiness firms. Steve Jobs and his partner started out making computers themselves, by hand, in a garage, and owning them directly. The fact that the economics of modern factory production, mining, etc. often makes it very economically unattractive for wage laborers to own what they produce directly does not alter the fact that they still have that option, and that many workers exercise it when market conditions make it attractive to do so.