Burger flippers demanding $15/hr

Without access to money you can't do much of anything.

I didn't say people without money have a choice. I said people have a choice. If they have no money, their first choice should probably be to figure out a way to get some.

He has a choice to increase his income with part time employment or to reduce his expenses in order to save enough tostart his own business.

Everyone's got to start somewhere. If a person chooses to do what is necessary to bootstrap a business, there is very little that can stop him.

 

Untrue. Profit can be understood to be equal to revenue less the costs of production. That's all the explanation required.

This whole explanation is flawed because it rests upon a falsehood. Labor isn't a commodity. Labor is an act that one performs with one's body.

 

The fact that "some" people have a choice cannot be generalized for the purposes of the argument. A person who is contracted to work all the hours under the sun cannot supplement his income. As long as variables exist that to some lesser or greater degree limit the ability of people to any potential choices, then the "choices" for those involved are no more real than for anybody else whose circumstances are necessarily limiting.

 

I specifically said "the rate of profit" as opposed to "profit". The following might be helpful:

"Since the general rate of profit is formed by taking the average of the various rates of profit for each 100 of capital invested in a definite period, e.g., a year, it follows that in it the difference brought about by different periods of turnover of different capitals is also effaced. But these differences have a decisive bearing on the different rates of profit in the various spheres of production whose average forms the general rate of profit.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm

 

I didn't say "labour" is a commodity rather that "labour power" is a commodity. I have already outlined the difference which is crucial.

 

I'll relate to you one personal anecdote, Longshot. I know a person who was raised in poverty who lost both his parents at a young age. He has basically been living a day to day basis ever since merely surviving not as a bum on the streets, but working solidly for 60 hours a week for years on end for poverty pay. His skill set is limited but he has a tremendous work ethic. He has aspired for many years to set up in business in an industry he is familiar with but cannot get any capital together because the cost of living here is so expensive.

He is good at his job but there are no opportunities for promotion, the banks won't touch him, he hasn't the money for higher education and he feels at a loss. He even considered suicide at one point. As far as people who have had better opportunities are concerned - those in business and those with skills - he is widely regarded as a lazy bum who needs to get up off his arse and work hard in order to improve the "choices" available to him.

 

Cutting to the chase the labor contract is based upon the employer being responsible for defining the tasks and securing compensation for the service or product the enterprise sells. The employee's responsibility is limited to doing the tasks that the employer assigns them to do.

The employee based upon the Natural Law of Property is entitled to enough compensation (at a minimum) to provide for their basic "support and comfort" based upon their labor, regardless of the tasks assigned by the employer, and it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that compensation.

 

An interesting side note. As I've mentioned I have a start-up manufacturing company and we just did a time study on one of the items we produce. Anyone could manufacture these parts with less than a hour's training even if they knew nothing walking in the door. They're that easy to manufacture. Based upon a $25/hr rate our cost of labor and the MSRP for the parts our labor costs are only 23% which is below the median business model of 25% and we're selling the crap out of these parts so they're obviously not over-priced.

I simply can't understand where people think that $15, $20, or even $25 per hour for a new hire is unacceptable because the enterprise can accomodate that cost of labor in the business plan just like we have.

 

I think this really highlights a point. A person working their ass off for poverty wages really has no opportunity to improve their financial situation. They're working too many hours to learn any new skills and can't afford to learn new skills either. Back in the 60's and 70's a person could get a better and higher paying job that would provide OJT (on the job training) but those jobs have mostly disappeared today and there are far too many people competing for the few remaining. A poor low income worker is pretty much condemned to being a low income worker forever these days.

The "right-wing" belief that they can improve their financial position is pretty much false with the "exception of the exception" that's really very rare. This doesn't just relate to the anecodtal story because those raised in poverty have little chance of escaping it. It's referred to as "generational poverty" and the effects of the poverty last for up to 15 generations even if all other factors are equal. On the flip side the positive effects of wealth also last for up to 15 generations if all other factors are equal. Wealth disparity is a huge factor when it comes to the "success or failure" of the individual to earn income.

 

Yes, IF a person woke up and had no marketable skills and zero dollars saved, his options would be far fewer than someone with six months worth of expenses in the bank and many years of work experience. Such a person will have to work hard to save money and gain experience before he has any kind of financial security. But a person with any level of financial security (i.e. most people) does have the choice to start a business with very little up front money.

 

Okay, rate of profit for dollar capital invested for a period of time. Still is based on profit, which can be thought of in terms of income less the cost for factors of production (land, labor, and capital). That's all the explanation required.

 

Labor is an act that one performs with one's body. There is no such thing as "labor power", unless you mean it in the physical sense, like horsepower or watts.

 

I don't disagree with that.

 

The wise capitalist's don't think it's unacceptable.

 

Well he doesn't sound lazy if he's working 60 hours per week. If he's making minimum wage of $7.25, he's making around $1,740 per month. However, if he's been working years on end, I hope he's making more than minimum. Either way, that's not a lot. I imagine that his biggest expense would be rent. Having no idea where he lives, I don't know what this is. Do you have any idea what his rent is? Next would be food, although that doesn't have to be very expensive. Personally, I spend $4.26 a day on food. Call it $130 per month.

The key is that he needs to find any way he can to eliminate expenses in the short term so that he can start to build his financial security. Only once he's financially secure would it be prudent for him to cast about for better income opportunities.

 

Agreed. But the point is, real choice is a false dichotomy for a significant minority and that minority is growing.

 

I agree that people need to work harder at building financial security (by cutting expenses, if necessary) and focusing on education so that they can provide themselves with more choices in life.

 

There is a distinction to be made between the general rate of profit, profit and the rate of profit. That's my point. There is a tendency under capitalism for the general rate of profit to fall even though individual profit rates increase. Price does not sufficiently explain value.

 

Profit, and hence the rate of profit, results from combining factors of production such that the resulting dollar income from the output is higher than the dollar price of those inputs.

 

My point is that that prejudices against the poor by those more fortunate exist. I'm talking about London where rents are extortionate. He, like many others, has already cut his expenses to the bone.

 

That's true. There are many variables involved but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of Marx's theories. Are you disputing his theory that there is a tendency in capitalism for the general rate of profit to fall?

 

Absolute nonsense. I've already explained what it is and if you want me to post a link to reiterate this fact, I will.

 

Living in London may not be his best choice. If I knew someone who was living in Manhattan or Boston and was having trouble making ends meet, I'd suggest he move to an area with a cheaper standard of living. It's WAY harder to live on the minimum wage in Manhattan than in, say, Tennessee.

 

Although a universal minimum wage might increase the economic appeal of East Wolf's Ear.

 

If the person is fluent in the language, and in some cases knows fundamental math, they basically have the "marketable skills" for probably 50% of all jobs in America. Everything else is predominately job specific training that is unique to the enterprise and job specific training is the responsibility of the employer.

Example: I was an aerospace instructor and many new-hires "knew how to drill a hole" but I had to train them in how to "drill a hole the company way" and it didn't matter if they "knew" how to drill a hole or not when they were hired because virtually none of them knew how to "drill a hole the company way" unless they were a re-hire (and even many of those couldn't do it right until they received the training).

I'm a very highly trained aerospace professional and I can cook a hamburger but I can't cook a hamburger the "McDonald's way" and I'm unqualified to be "burger-flipper" by any professional definition of the work. Being a burger-flipper is a skilled profession just like my profession in aerospace. When I was in college I worked as a janitor and that was also a very skilled profession. I had to learn how to be a janitor because it's a lot more involved than just pushing a mop around.

People that believe that low-paying jobs are "unskilled jobs" are really rather igorant IMHO.