Wage Slavery

[Camicon]

Look, I don't disagree that there are some shitty circumstances. Just don't trivialise the concept of slavery. To get to "wage slavery" we need to take two bullshit steps: First, redefine "slavery" to mean any old thing that's not really voluntary. Second, redefine "voluntary" so that even if you have autonomy of choice, if your alternative choices are unpalatable then it's not really voluntary.

or create another term that isn't called wage slavery but means basically what where talking about like... indentured servitude? I dunno

Or Exploitative Employment? There's no doubt that those jobs are exploitative, but there is also no question that those jobs are the best options for the people that take them, that those jobs keep entire communities alive and well, and that they are 100% voluntarily taken.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

or create another term that isn't called wage slavery but means basically what where talking about like... indentured servitude? I dunno

Or Exploitative Employment? There's no doubt that those jobs are exploitative, but there is also no question that those jobs are the best options for the people that take them, that those jobs keep entire communities alive and well, and that they are 100% voluntarily taken.

Yes. If you're going to have any word for it, use "exploitation". I'm less inclined to take a person's argument seriously if they go around using hyperbole like "slavery".

[Bulgislavia]

or create another term that isn't called wage slavery but means basically what where talking about like... indentured servitude? I dunno

Or Exploitative Employment? There's no doubt that those jobs are exploitative, but there is also no question that those jobs are the best options for the people that take them, that those jobs keep entire communities alive and well, and that they are 100% voluntarily taken.

Its just such a shame that that type of exploitation/imperialism is justified as being "The best thing for those people and communities"

isnt there any other alternative!? there has to be.

no one can really win from that misery, the child is deprived of a happy and healthy upbringing and misses out on valuable bonding, learning and positive memories, but because this capitalistic structure doesnt value those actions and instead places more value in "exploitive employment" and profit creation the people involved really do miss out on living even though they are in those jobs so they can get what they need to extend and prolong their lives

[Spiral Sun]

Does this count company shops?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Or Exploitative Employment? There's no doubt that those jobs are exploitative, but there is also no question that those jobs are the best options for the people that take them, that those jobs keep entire communities alive and well, and that they are 100% voluntarily taken.

Its just such a shame that that type of exploitation/imperialism is justified as being "The best thing for those people and communities"

isnt there any other alternative!? there has to be.

no one can really win from that misery, the child is deprived of a happy and healthy upbringing and misses out on valuable bonding, learning and positive memories, but because this capitalistic structure doesnt value those actions and instead places more value in "exploitive employment" and profit creation the people involved really do miss out on living even though they are in those jobs so they can get what they need to extend and prolong their lives

It's not the "capitalistic structure", it's consumers. It's not like a company exploits some children to make some shoes and then takes the shoes out back to the money tree. Companies earn profit by providing consumers with what they want. Companies that don't do that die. Children are able to be exploited because us consumers value cheap shoes more than we value the standard of living for those who made them. We may say otherwise around other people, but that's not what we say with our dollars. Blame for exploitation lies with us, your average consumer, not with corporations.

[Bulgislavia]

Its just such a shame that that type of exploitation/imperialism is justified as being "The best thing for those people and communities"

isnt there any other alternative!? there has to be.

no one can really win from that misery, the child is deprived of a happy and healthy upbringing and misses out on valuable bonding, learning and positive memories, but because this capitalistic structure doesnt value those actions and instead places more value in "exploitive employment" and profit creation the people involved really do miss out on living even though they are in those jobs so they can get what they need to extend and prolong their lives

It's not the "capitalistic structure", it's consumers. It's not like a company exploits some children to make some shoes and then takes the shoes out back to the money tree. Companies earn profit by providing consumers with what they want. Companies that don't do that die. Children are able to be exploited because us consumers value cheap shoes more than we value the standard of living for those who made them. We may say otherwise around other people, but that's not what we say with our dollars. Blame for exploitation lies with us, your average consumer, not with corporations.

But this system of unthinking consumerism, exploitation and profit before people behaviour has only been able to flourish and thrive to such an extent because of the frame work (This globalized capitalistic structure) that the whole system is built around and on

[New Asgariath]

very funny, although I believe that while food is a necessity that we actually need to survive money is unnecessary and actually MAKES people think they need money to live and the current dominator culture is set up so people actually depend on money to live on. If all of a sudden money was abolished the world could still function, the industry, resources and people were still there, we just took money out of the equation.

The fact that you compare money as important as food just goes to show what a great job the parasite has done in making people believe that the existence of money is essential and that we would die without it

No, that would lead to a third world war as the economy disappeared overnight and everyone lost everything. Our world is built on stocks and bonds- on currency. If you ban it like that, the stock market is gone, corporations are gone, bank loans are gone, wages are gone. There will not be any form of socialism. There will be a form of apocalypse.

The world is where it is now economically due to the existence of currency. Currency is just a measure of work (or rather, what that work is worth to anyone). Obviously, the work a CEO does is infinitely more important and takes infinitely more skill than anything a kid at a McDonalds does. That's why the kid barely gets payed anything: anybody can do his job. There is a supply of 7 billion people who can say "hello, can I take your order", but only 1% of the world can manage a company.

At the moment, the economy is the only thing that ties and keeps the nations in our world together. The existence of money is essential, and there is a reason it was invented. Bartering does not work past a village, much less 7 billion people. Currency is not the problem, but ignorance and inability to use it is. Minimum wage exists for people who have no talents or intelligence at all.

The fact that you want to reduce the world economy to bartering shows what a good job stupidity has done at making you ignorant to the most basic functions of the economy.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

It's not the "capitalistic structure", it's consumers. It's not like a company exploits some children to make some shoes and then takes the shoes out back to the money tree. Companies earn profit by providing consumers with what they want. Companies that don't do that die. Children are able to be exploited because us consumers value cheap shoes more than we value the standard of living for those who made them. We may say otherwise around other people, but that's not what we say with our dollars. Blame for exploitation lies with us, your average consumer, not with corporations.

But this system of unthinking consumerism, exploitation and profit before people behaviour has only been able to flourish and thrive to such an extent because of the frame work (This globalized capitalistic structure) that the whole system is built around and on

The "whole system" you're referring to is "voluntary trade". Capitalism is all about voluntary trade. Alternatives to that involve forcing people into trades they don't want to make. Isn't that slavery, by your definition?

[Phalaska]

Or Exploitative Employment? There's no doubt that those jobs are exploitative, but there is also no question that those jobs are the best options for the people that take them, that those jobs keep entire communities alive and well, and that they are 100% voluntarily taken.

Its just such a shame that that type of exploitation/imperialism is justified as being "The best thing for those people and communities"

isnt there any other alternative!? there has to be.

no one can really win from that misery, the child is deprived of a happy and healthy upbringing and misses out on valuable bonding, learning and positive memories, but because this capitalistic structure doesnt value those actions and instead places more value in "exploitive employment" and profit creation the people involved really do miss out on living even though they are in those jobs so they can get what they need to extend and prolong their lives

If consumers didn't want cheap shoes, then the companies who make these shoes would have kept their factories in the US and Europe, instead of outsourcing them to the developing world. Let's think about that for a second.

If those factories would not have left for the 3rd world, then all those starving (make no mistake millions of them were starving) children would not have the opportunity (and make no mistake, it is an opportunity and they are among the wealthiest people in their communities if they are lucky enough to land a job making Nike shoes) to to work in a factory to food themselves, they would then be forced to either starve or go into child prostitution.

And as for The American and European workers, some of them would still have jobs, but EVERYBODY ELSE would be paying more money to buy shoes. This would leave less money in consumers' pockets for other goods and services, so some unseen worker would not be able to clean a house, mow a lawn, repair a car, etc, because the money people would have spent on his services was spent on extra expensive shoes.

The end result of globalization is good for everyone.

[Bulgislavia]

very funny, although I believe that while food is a necessity that we actually need to survive money is unnecessary and actually MAKES people think they need money to live and the current dominator culture is set up so people actually depend on money to live on. If all of a sudden money was abolished the world could still function, the industry, resources and people were still there, we just took money out of the equation.

The fact that you compare money as important as food just goes to show what a great job the parasite has done in making people believe that the existence of money is essential and that we would die without it

No, that would lead to a third world war as the economy disappeared overnight and everyone lost everything. Our world is built on stocks and bonds- on currency. If you ban it like that, the stock market is gone, corporations are gone, bank loans are gone, wages are gone. There will not be any form of socialism. There will be a form of apocalypse.

The world is where it is now economically due to the existence of currency. Currency is just a measure of work (or rather, what that work is worth to anyone). Obviously, the work a CEO does is infinitely more important and takes infinitely more skill than anything a kid at a McDonalds does. That's why the kid barely gets payed anything: anybody can do his job. There is a supply of 7 billion people who can say "hello, can I take your order", but only 1% of the world can manage a company.

At the moment, the economy is the only thing that ties and keeps the nations in our world together. The existence of money is essential, and there is a reason it was invented. Bartering does not work past a village, much less 7 billion people. Currency is not the problem, but ignorance and inability to use it is. Minimum wage exists for people who have no talents or intelligence at all.

The fact that you want to reduce the world economy to bartering shows what a good job stupidity has done at making you ignorant to the most basic functions of the economy.

The Chief executive of Disney was paid almost 600 million dollars in 1998 alone while the average pay rate was $25,000
now tell me what the hell does one individual do with an annual income of 600 million, why is such a salary necessarily? to show him that he's special and no one else can do a job like him? that's what you seem to be saying

A resource based economy or gift economy or maybe a world divided into different regions with different economic structures I think would work and there have been examples throughout history of varying different economic styles and systems ranging from Anarchist Barcelona in 1936, Ukraine free territory from 1917-1922 etc

Money may be the most basic function of OUR present day economy, but there are even different types of money from the money backed by real material goods that exist in the physical world and the money created out of nothing that show as just digits on a computer screen. Look where this current system has led us, social and economic precarity for billions and a global financial crisis, yeah what a fantastic sucess this current system is, sure it may have worked well in the past but times are changing fast and I dont believe it can continue on in its current form, something needs to be done

Minimum wage exists for people who have no talents or intelligence at all

oh that's really nice
and I actually disagree with your comment that "Anybody can do that job" because not everyone can do every low skilled job, not because they dont have intelligence but because they do not have a natural feel for it,

if you dont feel passionate or proud about what you do, you do a crappy job of it but the problem is that in this current system people are forced into dead end jobs that they dont feel proud or passionate about, that they get stuck in (People will hold onto any crappy job in a horrible economic climate) and then end up with low self esteem, miserable and unfulfilled in life, unable to feel like they can fulfill their potential as a human being.

Not just anybody can walk into any job (Even the most undervalued job in society)and be crash hot at it, infact most would probably find it unbearable and fucken hard because its just "not their thing" it not because they are unintelligent, and while I admit I may display ignorance and stupidity when it comes to economics I think your the one displaying ignorance and stupidity to assume everyone stuck in dead end undervalued minimum wage jobs are all "Talentless humans with no intelligence"

[Bulgislavia]

But this system of unthinking consumerism, exploitation and profit before people behaviour has only been able to flourish and thrive to such an extent because of the frame work (This globalized capitalistic structure) that the whole system is built around and on

The "whole system" you're referring to is "voluntary trade". Capitalism is all about voluntary trade. Alternatives to that involve forcing people into trades they don't want to make. Isn't that slavery, by your definition?

But the whole system is not all voluntary trade, this system allows for multinational corporations to dictate terms to national parliaments like the story of the Canadian Parliament banning the operations of a company because it did not meet safety requirements or something and then the company lobbied some international institution (I think it was the WTO) and then Canada was forced to repeal its decision and allow the company to trade or whatever. Im not clear on the details of the story but the general gist was that multinational corporations ended up overriding the decisions of a democratically elected parliament and that is the kind of practices that are apart of this system (and I hope this changes in the future!)

Other symptoms of this system are Battery hen's and pig stalls which actually is cruelty to animals and holds them into slavery doesnt it?

anyway I gotta go hang out with friends so I'll see you all later have a good one

[Mr Bananagrabber]

The "whole system" you're referring to is "voluntary trade". Capitalism is all about voluntary trade. Alternatives to that involve forcing people into trades they don't want to make. Isn't that slavery, by your definition?

But the whole system is not all voluntary trade, this system allows for multinational corporations to dictate terms to national parliaments like the story of the Canadian Parliament banning the operations of a company because it did not meet safety requirements or something and then the company lobbied some international institution (I think it was the WTO) and then Canada was forced to repeal its decision and allow the company to trade or whatever. Im not clear on the details of the story but the general gist was that multinational corporations ended up overriding the decisions of a democratically elected parliament and that is the kind of practices that are apart of this system (and I hope this changes in the future!)

That's definitely a big problem, though not a problem of capitalism. That happens everywhere in every system. But at least we're getting somewhere. The problem identified here isn't "wage slavery" or "materialism", it's just the wealthy having the ability to lobby.

Other symptoms of this system are Battery hen's and pig stalls which actually is cruelty to animals and holds them into slavery doesnt it?

Well that's not a problem with the system. That's a problem of we don't all agree on whether or not it's okay to do that stuff to animals.

anyway I gotta go hang out with friends so I'll see you all later have a good one

Bye.

[Distruzio]

One's legal.

In some places, it sure is. The other doesn't exist.

[Risottia]

One's legal.

And is applied about everywhere in the world.

[Ethel mermania]

Lets start with definitions.

http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery

(slā'və-rē, slāv'rē) pronunciation
n., pl., -ies.

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2. The practice of owning slaves.
3. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
4. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
5. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Well that was easy...

Appeals to dictionary are appeals to false authority and are circular arguments.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

So, no, wrong.

So who is he to appeal too, the mighty favod?

[Jello Biafra]

It's not the "capitalistic structure", it's consumers. It's not like a company exploits some children to make some shoes and then takes the shoes out back to the money tree. Companies earn profit by providing consumers with what they want. Companies that don't do that die. Children are able to be exploited because us consumers value cheap shoes more than we value the standard of living for those who made them. We may say otherwise around other people, but that's not what we say with our dollars. Blame for exploitation lies with us, your average consumer, not with corporations.

It's both. While it is true that shoes produced in sweatshops exist because people are willing to buy them, they couldn't buy them if they weren't being produced.

[Raeyh]

Lets start with definitions.

http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery

(slā'və-rē, slāv'rē) pronunciation
n., pl., -ies.

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2. The practice of owning slaves.
3. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
4. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
5. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Well that was easy...

Appeals to dictionary are appeals to false authority and are circular arguments.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

So, no, wrong.

The dictionary really is the authority on the English language, though. In order for it to be an appeal to false authority, the authority needs to be false.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Appeals to dictionary are appeals to false authority and are circular arguments.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

So, no, wrong.

The dictionary really is the authority on the English language

No, it isn't.

Dictionaries exist to provide suggestions (and they're only that) to help readers know what a writer or speaker probably meant when he used a word. They don't prescribe to writers or speakers how they must use a word.

And indeed, the way in which they are constructed reflects this. No one sits down and says "flibbletigibbet means whamadoolam." Rather, they analyze the way in which "flibbletigibbet" is used and conclude, "OK, when people say flibbletigibbet, most of the time it means whamadoolam. Sometimes, they mean jimmijapow, so we'll list that as a secondary meaning. Every now and then you'll see someone using it to mean blammababoon, but that's so rare that it doesn't justify using up the limited space we have available." So just because you might not see "blammababoon" in the dictionary as a definition for "flibbletigibbet" doesn't mean that when someone uses it to mean "blammababoon," that someone is somehow "wrong." It might just mean that the dictionary writers decided it wasn't common enough to justify using up the space (depending on the intended scope and target of the particular dictionary), or perhaps it's a subtle enough distinction from another possible meaning they give that they judged it not worth mentioning (or they didn't catch it), or they just simply didn't see it in the corpus they examined at all.

In other words, they're descriptive of existing usage, not prescriptive in any way.

[Raeyh]

Dictionaries were made to standardize the spelling and meaning of words. Even if they took the definitions from how people generally use it, from then on out that's what it means.

[Tovaslavia]

In most first world countries, wage slavery is not nearly as bad as actual slavery, because even people who don't have jobs know that they will not starve, and can still receive protection from tax-paid services such as the police and ambulances. So it can't be slavery, as people know they can quit work and still survive. In the third world countries though, wage slavery is just as bad as actual slavery. People know that in order to feed families, they have to work fifteen hours a day under terrible conditions for just pennies an hour. They can't search for other jobs, because all other jobs are just as bad and cruel. They can't quit their job, or they will starve. They only have two choices: do the work under inhumane conditions, or starve to death. It is no better than slavery

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Dictionaries were made to standardize the spelling and meaning of words. Even if they took the definitions from how people generally use it, from then on out that's what it means.

No.

In the real world, languages don't work like that. At all. Instead, languages are defined by how people actually use it, not by what some self-appointed authority wishes to dictate. Dictionaries merely reflect usage. There's a reason dictionary entries for words change over time.

[Vetalia]

If one can succeed in life merely by working hard then why is it that a nation like Tanzania is poor? Have you seen how hard those people work?

Duplicate post on my end.

[Vetalia]

If one can succeed in life merely by working hard then why is it that a nation like Tanzania is poor? Have you seen how hard those people work?

You succeed by working smarter, not harder. Hard work in and of itself has no value, you have to provide a skill or service that is in demand and which is not easily duplicated in order to earn more for it.

[Rick Rollin]

No, that would lead to a third world war as the economy disappeared overnight and everyone lost everything. Our world is built on stocks and bonds- on currency. If you ban it like that, the stock market is gone, corporations are gone, bank loans are gone, wages are gone. There will not be any form of socialism. There will be a form of apocalypse.

The world is where it is now economically due to the existence of currency. Currency is just a measure of work (or rather, what that work is worth to anyone). Obviously, the work a CEO does is infinitely more important and takes infinitely more skill than anything a kid at a McDonalds does. That's why the kid barely gets payed anything: anybody can do his job. There is a supply of 7 billion people who can say "hello, can I take your order", but only 1% of the world can manage a company.

At the moment, the economy is the only thing that ties and keeps the nations in our world together. The existence of money is essential, and there is a reason it was invented. Bartering does not work past a village, much less 7 billion people. Currency is not the problem, but ignorance and inability to use it is. Minimum wage exists for people who have no talents or intelligence at all.

The fact that you want to reduce the world economy to bartering shows what a good job stupidity has done at making you ignorant to the most basic functions of the economy.

The Chief executive of Disney was paid almost 600 million dollars in 1998 alone while the average pay rate was $25,000
now tell me what the hell does one individual do with an annual income of 600 million, why is such a salary necessarily? to show him that he's special and no one else can do a job like him? that's what you seem to be saying

Running a company is hard.

A resource based economy or gift economy or maybe a world divided into different regions with different economic structures I think would work and there have been examples throughout history of varying different economic styles and systems ranging from Anarchist Barcelona in 1936, Ukraine free territory from 1917-1922 etc

Explain how they work.

Money may be the most basic function of OUR present day economy, but there are even different types of money from the money backed by real material goods that exist in the physical world and the money created out of nothing that show as just digits on a computer screen. Look where this current system has led us, social and economic precarity for billions and a global financial crisis, yeah what a fantastic sucess this current system is, sure it may have worked well in the past but times are changing fast and I dont believe it can continue on in its current form, something needs to be done

From what I discern, you like hard money. That can't be right. Please explain.

Minimum wage exists for people who have no talents or intelligence at all

oh that's really nice
and I actually disagree with your comment that "Anybody can do that job" because not everyone can do every low skilled job, not because they dont have intelligence but because they do not have a natural feel for it,

What "feel"?

if you dont feel passionate or proud about what you do, you do a crappy job of it but the problem is that in this current system people are forced into dead end jobs that they dont feel proud or passionate about, that they get stuck in (People will hold onto any crappy job in a horrible economic climate) and then end up with low self esteem, miserable and unfulfilled in life, unable to feel like they can fulfill their potential as a human being.

Not all jobs are fun.

Not just anybody can walk into any job (Even the most undervalued job in society)and be crash hot at it, infact most would probably find it unbearable and fucken hard because its just "not their thing"

A lot of things are not people's "thing".

it not because they are unintelligent, and while I admit I may display ignorance and stupidity when it comes to economics I think your the one displaying ignorance and stupidity to assume everyone stuck in dead end undervalued minimum wage jobs are all "Talentless humans with no intelligence"

They're treated badly because "talentless humans with no intelligence" can do it, not because they are.

Appeals to dictionary are appeals to false authority and are circular arguments.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

So, no, wrong.

The dictionary really is the authority on the English language, though. In order for it to be an appeal to false authority, the authority needs to be false.

There can be multiple definitions. Also, all authority can be wrong. This isn't France people.

In most first world countries, wage slavery is not nearly as bad as actual slavery, because even people who don't have jobs know that they will not starve, and can still receive protection from tax-paid services such as the police and ambulances. So it can't be slavery, as people know they can quit work and still survive. In the third world countries though, wage slavery is just as bad as actual slavery. People know that in order to feed families, they have to work fifteen hours a day under terrible conditions for just pennies an hour. They can't search for other jobs, because all other jobs are just as bad and cruel. They can't quit their job, or they will starve. They only have two choices: do the work under inhumane conditions, or starve to death. It is no better than slavery

As long is there is anti-trust legislation and freedom of speech, it eventually gets better.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I think the idea of the workplace in general is a very real tool that helps to solidify the class dictatorship. I do think this is a form of slavery, in the sense that our options and freedom are constrained based upon the whims of others without any implied consent. Wages are one facet of the social paradigm that seems to be the most effective at trapping people in poverty and restricting their freedoms.