Capitalism - can it result in slavery?

[amosknows]

I would agree that capitalism is not a system of slavery provided that people have a real choice of employment and that they are paid a "fair" wage in relation to the amount and skill of their labor.

However, even under a capitalist system, a total lack of choice and a failure to pay a fair wage would place labor under the umbrella of slave labor.

From a historical standpoint - slaves have had no other choice in their work and have been paid less than a fair wage for their labor (i.e. minimal subsistence).

Any opinions?

Is a minimum wage worker unable to make their bills who can not find another more preferable job in a capitalist system a salve?

Does slavery need one need to be forced in to a particular job or is the mere fact that a choice is lacking result in slavery provided less than a fair wage is paid?

[JMeganSnow]

This is plain silly because it rests on the premise that the welfare of the worker is the purpose of employment--it is not. You hire someone because hiring someone makes your business more productive, no other reason. Your proposal is also completely ignorant of the forces that set wages and prices.

EVERYONE has complete choice of employment regardless of the number of "employers" in their immediate vicinity. They can employ their skills by going to work for one of those employers, or they can go to work for themselves in one capacity or another, or they can sit around on their butt. They can even relocate and look for other employers if they want to--any employer on earth is potentially their employer.

As for a "fair" wage--the wages offered by the employer are inherently "fair". If you don't like them, don't work for him. If they're below what people can earn for themselves via applying their skills elsewhere, that employer will have to raise the offered wages or close their business. If they're above what the employer can afford, they'll go broke and have to close their business.

Setting a "fair" wage apart from the individual interests of the people involved is no more or less than economic suicide, as many rational economists have shown. The end result of a "minimum" or "living" wage is unemployment--those who would be willing to work for less than the minimum wage are not allowed to offer employers their cheaper services. Employers who can't afford to pay the higher wages cut staff.

As explained in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: if prices for labor are left free, they tend toward the level where everyone who seeks employment can find it.

The *return* on your work does not depend on how much *money* you get, but on the general level of economic wealth enjoyed in the world, and mandates for a given "wage" don't increase *total wealth*. When there is a vast abundance of wealth due to various labor-saving improvements, the same amount of work gets you a greater return. When there's basically no wealth because people live by digging in the dirt, you are left with no option but endless backbreaking labor just to fill your stomach. This is a metaphysical issue, not a man-made one, and men cannot fix via decree the *fact* that if there's no food then starvation is our fate--they can only go about producing food. The "fairness" you cry for is nothing more or less than the attempt to wish or magic away metaphysical facts, when the proper thing to do is to leave men *alone* so they can go about *dealing* with those facts without your "wishing" getting in the way.

[DavidOdden]

However, even under a capitalist system, a total lack of choice and a failure to pay a fair wage would place labor under the umbrella of slave labor.

This is not what "slavery" means. In a capitalist society, there is always a choice, of self-employment. A fair wage is "what the work is worth".

[Laure]

Is a minimum wage worker unable to make their bills who can not find another more preferable job in a capitalist system a slave?

Nope, I'd say he's a lucky man! Would he be better off if his one-and-only employer shut down?

[TheOpposition]

I would agree that capitalism is not a system of slavery provided that people have a real choice of employment and that they are paid a "fair" wage in relation to the amount and skill of their labor.

However, even under a capitalist system, a total lack of choice and a failure to pay a fair wage would place labor under the umbrella of slave labor.

What is a "real choice" and a ""fair" wage"?

Having limited options for employment and having someone put a gun to your head and telling you to toil around are different things. Slavery isn't just having limited options available to you, it's somebody initiating physical coercion against you to steal your time(labor) and wealth.

Is a minimum wage worker unable to make their bills who can not find another more preferable job in a capitalist system a salve?

No, he's not. He's a man who is trying to find a better job.

[amosknows]

This is plain silly because it rests on the premise that the welfare of the worker is the purpose of employment--it is not. You hire someone because hiring someone makes your business more productive, no other reason. Your proposal is also completely ignorant of the forces that set wages and prices.

EVERYONE has complete choice of employment regardless of the number of "employers" in their immediate vicinity. They can employ their skills by going to work for one of those employers, or they can go to work for themselves in one capacity or another, or they can sit around on their butt. They can even relocate and look for other employers if they want to--any employer on earth is potentially their employer.

As for a "fair" wage--the wages offered by the employer are inherently "fair". If you don't like them, don't work for him. If they're below what people can earn for themselves via applying their skills elsewhere, that employer will have to raise the offered wages or close their business. If they're above what the employer can afford, they'll go broke and have to close their business.

Setting a "fair" wage apart from the individual interests of the people involved is no more or less than economic suicide, as many rational economists have shown. The end result of a "minimum" or "living" wage is unemployment--those who would be willing to work for less than the minimum wage are not allowed to offer employers their cheaper services. Employers who can't afford to pay the higher wages cut staff.

As explained in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: if prices for labor are left free, they tend toward the level where everyone who seeks employment can find it.

The *return* on your work does not depend on how much *money* you get, but on the general level of economic wealth enjoyed in the world, and mandates for a given "wage" don't increase *total wealth*. When there is a vast abundance of wealth due to various labor-saving improvements, the same amount of work gets you a greater return. When there's basically no wealth because people live by digging in the dirt, you are left with no option but endless backbreaking labor just to fill your stomach. This is a metaphysical issue, not a man-made one, and men cannot fix via decree the *fact* that if there's no food then starvation is our fate--they can only go about producing food. The "fairness" you cry for is nothing more or less than the attempt to wish or magic away metaphysical facts, when the proper thing to do is to leave men *alone* so they can go about *dealing* with those facts without your "wishing" getting in the way.

Jennifer

You have shifted focus from the condition of the laborer to the functionality and productivity of the system and the business (and by default the employer). I am not advocating a fair wage (or "crying" for fairness). You seem to have predisposed opinions and you are over-looking the question. I am simply stating (as a point of contention) that at some point a wage below subsistence without a real choice is slavery. Do you disagree with this? If so why?

Slavery makes a "business" more productive as well. I don't see how what sets a wage or how a wage is set is relevant TO MY QUESTION. What is relevant is the actual rate of the wage itself and the lack of a choice for a particular laborer. Can this ever happen in a capitalist system - you appear to say "no" because if it's working to perfection everyone should be able to get a job at a fair wage. However, the fact that everyone can find work does not equate to a real choice - I don't like digging graves, but if that was all that was available and they paid me less than basic subsistence (in my view) I would be a slave. Do you disagree?

Finally, whether or not any laborer could find themselves faced with a lack of a real choice at a level of wage which is above subsistence in a capitalist system is unquestioned. Currently in the US we are facing double digit unemployment (although we don't have a true Laissez-faire capitalist system. And whatever we have is currently being hijacked and destroyed by the current band of private and government thieves and crooks).

Amos

What is a "real choice" and a ""fair" wage"?

Having limited options for employment and having someone put a gun to your head and telling you to toil around are different things. Slavery isn't just having limited options available to you, it's somebody initiating physical coercion against you to steal your time(labor) and wealth.

Agreed. we would need some definition to really answer the question. Suppose the only available jobs were grave digging at a rate of wage which was actually below the poverty level (or a real level of subsistence). What say yee? Slave? Or Free Man?

Edited January 5, 2009 by amosknows

[Jake_Ellison]

I would agree that capitalism is not a system of slavery provided that people have a real choice of employment and that they are paid a "fair" wage in relation to the amount and skill of their labor.

If you are willing to accept the generally used meaning of slavery, then the answer is no, in a Capitalist society slavery wouldn't exist.

Slavery can only exist in a society in which someone is physically forced to work. Laissez-Faire Capitalism doesn't allow for that(under the law), so there can be no slavery, no matter what hypothetical you bring up.

Your agreement on the issue is irrelevant.

However, if you wish to define slavery in some other way, go ahead and define it. I will then simply prove you wrong by reductio ad absurdum. (I would present common, hypothetical situations in which by your definition, perfectly free men would be considered slaves)

But for that I would need you to take the time and define your terms, if you insist on rejecting the definition we (and most people) use.

[JMeganSnow]

You have shifted focus from the condition of the laborer to the functionality and productivity of the system and the business (and by default the employer). I am not advocating a fair wage (or "crying" for fairness). You seem to have predisposed opinions and you are over-looking the question. I am simply stating (as a point of contention) that at some point a wage below subsistence without a real choice is slavery. Do you disagree with this? If so why?

Yes, because you're ignoring every bit of reality that is pertinent to the situation, that's why.

Slavery makes a "business" more productive as well. I don't see how what sets a wage or how a wage is set is relevant TO MY QUESTION.

Obviously, otherwise you would never have asked the question in the first place--you would have known the answer already. I'm trying to point you to the relevant facts that you have to know in order to answer the question, not just giving you an answer you're certain not to comprehend due to lack of context. Shut your whining.

What is relevant is the actual rate of the wage itself and the lack of a choice for a particular laborer. Can this ever happen in a capitalist system - you appear to say "no" because if it's working to perfection everyone should be able to get a job at a fair wage. However, the fact that everyone can find work does not equate to a real choice - I don't like digging graves, but if that was all that was available and they paid me less than basic subsistence (in my view) I would be a slave. Do you disagree?

I certainly disagree, because your *view* means precisely nothing. No one has threatened you with physical force to compel your obedience, you're just indulging your whims by refusing to do "lousy" jobs. As Ayn Rand put it: "There are no lousy jobs, only lousy men unwilling to do them."

However, even if capitalism is working to perfection it's quite possible that there will not be enough *stuff* for everyone, thus it will be impossible to provide everyone with a "subsistence" wage. If people decide to have ten children when farms are only producing enough for them to have two, those children ARE GOING TO STARVE TO DEATH. It doesn't matter if their parents receive ten billion dollars an hour in wages if there's *no food to be had*. Capitalism doesn't dictate how much will be produced or when or why or how or any of the myriad other conditions that could lead to shortages any more than any other economic system does--the individual men living in a capitalist society each must decide that they want to live and produce the values necessary FOR them to live. If they default on this, they will starve just as a man on a desert island who decides not to produce any food will starve.

Let me reiterate: Capitalism is not a system for ensuring that everyone gets what they "need"--there is no such system nor possibility of such a system because nothing and no one can ensure that what they need will even exist. It is a system for allowing you the freedom to pursue getting what you need should you choose to do so.

Agreed. we would need some definition to really answer the question. Suppose the only available jobs were grave digging at a rate of wage which was actually below the poverty level 9or a real level of subsistence). What say yee? Slave? Or Free Man?

Free man. Duh. What if you're stranded on a desert island and there are no available jobs of any kind that pay any wages at all? Are you a slave *then*? To whom?

You're presupposing derivative conditions that may or may not even exist and calling them the primaries required for human survival, but employment and wages aren't primaries. Primaries are things like the fact that you need to *eat*, and you don't necessarily *need a job* to secure that for yourself. True subsistence means the minimum requirements for you to survive from one day to the next. Consider for a second what it would mean to receive a "less than subsistence" return for your work--you'd starve to death in a matter of days because you'd be in caloric deficit.

The fact that you can't afford an iPod or high-speed internet does not mean that you're somehow suffering, impoverished, and unable to 'subsist'. Before you make such claims, check your premises.

[Pokarrin]

Slavery makes a "business" more productive as well.

It absolutely does not. I would much rather hire someone to work for me than force him to, if I had the power to make that choice. A slave has no freedom of choice, therefore no ability to improve his life, therefore no reason to improve his abilities. An employee who voluntarily seeks employment is free to improve his life, and understands that the quality of his work directly impacts the quality of his life. It is much more advantageous to a business to employ people who want to do a good job because it serves their own interests (as in payraises and promotions) than to force people to work who seek only to do the job well enough to avoid punishment. Jobs will get done better, faster, and more efficiently, which is better for the bottom line.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The fact that you can't afford an iPod or high-speed internet does not mean that you're somehow suffering, impoverished, and unable to 'subsist'. Before you make such claims, check your premises.

You forgot to include no household interociter, JMeganSnow. Can't live without one of those.

Oh, wait. I forgot, it's Monday, so it must be 2009. People won't be whining about not having interociters until 2037. Darned time travel really messes up your perspective.

.........

The point being that no one could have considered the iPod or high speed internet a necessity even 20 years ago. And 100 years ago, no TV, no radio, and phonographs (wax cylinders or did they have those really brittle shellac platters yet? No, we are not even up to *vinyl*) were new then, perhaps too new to be considered necessities. Mind you none of this was *portable*. And people lived and had no idea they were missing something.

Now you can often see the spectacle of people behaving as if life is over when the battery dies.

[SD26]

Slavery makes a "business" more productive as well.

I completely disagree.

Mistakes and general lack of skill from those that can't or won't produce, let alone produce well, under force of any kind of slavery makes for poor production.

Didn't the fall of the USSR prove that out once already in the recent past? Isn't that what Rand left in the first place?

[DavidOdden]

Suppose the only available jobs were grave digging at a rate of wage which was actually below the poverty level (or a real level of subsistence).

Yet another false dichotomy. Man is not metaphysically required to "work for an employer" to survive. What percentage of the population of the world actually works for someone else?

[SD26]

Yet another false dichotomy. Man is not metaphysically required to "work for an employer" to survive. What percentage of the population of the world actually works for someone else?

Indeed. I would expect that each individual works for one's self, but one may do so providing skills to another that needs the task completed in return for compensation. Classic trading.

[RationalBiker]

However, even under a capitalist system, a total lack of choice and a failure to pay a fair wage would place labor under the umbrella of slave labor.

Your whole premise requires the word "slave" to be redefined, at least as I understand the term. What is your definition of "slave"?

I do not believe you are evaluating who is responsible for the "lack of choice" in your question. Also, I'm not sure what you mean be "fair" in your terminology, "fair wage". How would you determine OBJECTIVELY what "fair" is in an arrangement between two parties in which YOU are not one of the parties?

Edited January 5, 2009 by RationalBiker
Added Content