Wage Slavery

Philosophyking87 · May 3, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Any thoughts? Feel free to discuss the pros and cons.

Deleted member 1424 · May 3, 2012

...pros?

for a select few I suppose

Cognisant · May 3, 2012

while Luddites emphasized the dehumanization brought about by machines

Yes because dehumanized wage slavery is a bad thing.

I probably misinterpreted that, still industrial machines and automation don't detract from the economy, they add to it, eventually making the world a wealthier place for everybody and when it dosen't it's not the machine's fault, it's the people own them and their selfish abuse of power that are to blame.

MissQuote · May 3, 2012

The term itself is pretty self explanatory. And anyone who has ever been a worker in the lower class of society understands perfectly what it means.

A lot of people, a lot of society, the middle class, upper middle class and upper class has a tendency to think of the lower class as lazy and/or welfare dependent. entitled.

When the actuality is people, quite often, who work grueling hours doing menial and backbreaking and disgusting and mindless work for pay so low a quarter a dollar an hour is an exciting raise, especially if the voters didn't force it by raising the minimum..

Just above this is the skilled non union tradesmen, with only a few dollars an hour better wages. To whom a dollar an hour is an exciting raise every couple of years, though often the minimum wage they are proud to be several dollars ahead of is voted up faster than these raises happen..

Slavery, certainly. When, in the very best of of circumstances, next weeks food and shelter is dependent on this weeks labor and it will be like that for every week to come and to come and to come and to come.

In worse circumstances, tonight's food and shelter is dependent.

Consider what property a wage slave will ever own, if any.

Consider what debt a wage slave will incur.

The question is, to whom is the worker a slave to? To their employer? To the corporations and banks that run most of the capitalist show?

To the voters?

To society as a whole?

This just popped in my head:

We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us.

(from fight club)

Even that though, those jobs described, are the upper rungs of the lower class and the lower rungs of the middle class.

Pros to society...

-the dirty un-fun parts of the world keep running without the rest of everyone having to look at them

-?????

I read this analogy once recently, about how if you set a bottle of liquor down in the middle of ten bums and tell them to fight for it, winner gets the bottle. That is like capitalism. But also, to turn around and condescend the nine bums who don't get to be drunk tonight because they didn't fight hard enough, while that may be true, it is like pretending there wasn't just the one bottle and that there could have been a chance for everyone to be drunk tonight, if only everyone had fought hard enough. That is like pretending capitalism provides enough opportunity for all if only they would fight harder and longer and with more determination.

Cons to society...

-social services must be given (assuming altruism is a bad trait for society to have)

-slums to look at

Some more pros...

-Fun Wikipedia articles

-

-

Cons

-finding yourself stuck as a wage slave?

Cognisant · May 3, 2012

Admittedly technology is a large part of the problem, I would like to say if the world's population was reduced to the level it was at two hundred years ago that the technological progress we've made would make for a utopia. But in reality the computers in front of us were only made possible by an enormous amount of infrastructure, from dirt in the ground to the technology we own there's a long and complicated manufacturing process, which itself needs to be supported by yet more infrastructure.

Now obviously the gears that make this giant sprawling machine run are the people in it, for whom there's simply not enough of the end-of-the-line products to go around, which is not to say I oppose the way things are, perhaps we could all be better off if industry was focused on the basics of life rather than the latest and greatest, but that's a boring world with plain clothes, plain food and plain accommodation. Rather I see the world we have now as being if nothing else better than the world we had before, and it will get better still, compared to bygone eras the "middle class" of today live like kings and in the future, as this great machine of ours become increasingly automated, production will out compete supply and wealthy lifestyle by today's standards will be available to all.

As it is somebody needs to clean toilets and do other stuff like that, society just couldn't work otherwise, and maybe in an ideal world cleaners will be paid more than corporate executives, but I doubt that will ever happen, so if we are ever to escape the tyranny of wage slavery I think it will be by more efficient processes, a second industrial revolution, the automation revolution.

ROBOTS!!!

Cleaning toilets is a shitty job for a human, but what if the cleaner wasn't human, do you think dung beetles dislike dung, of course not, do you think spiders build webs because they understand what they're doing, of course not, do you think ants work together because they feel societally obligated, of course not.

Peripheral Visionary · May 3, 2012

Wage slavery?

Slaves don't get wages. That's the point of being a slave.

Slaves are not able to refuse a job--unlike folks who are working for a wage. You are perfectly free to go do something else if you don't care for the monetary compensation. If you agree to sell your labor on the terms you are offered, you aren't a slave. You have choices, slaves don't.

What "wage slave" is intended to disguise is the sense of entitlement felt by those who use that term. Since no one is willing to offer the compensation for the services that the worker thinks he/she is entitled to, it can't be the fault of the worker's lack of marketable skills. It must be "the system."

Immigrants don't seem to suffer from this curious delusion.

Cognisant · May 3, 2012

Very good point there.

Still I've been "persuaded" to do overtime, I was paid for it, but my point is that I didn't want the money in the first place, my family was getting together and going out to dinner, and I was the only one who couldn't go.

I wasn't "forced" as such, but where does one draw the line?

EditorOne · May 3, 2012

"You are perfectly free to go do something else if you don't care for the monetary compensation. If you agree to sell your labor on the terms you are offered, you aren't a slave. You have choices, slaves don't."

Caveat here.
Not all are equal in their ability to "do something else." I know a woman who is a middle management supervisor, who does indeed work long unpaid hours because when you hit middle management, you no longer get overtime over 40 hours. You get nothing, but are expected to work however long it takes to fulfill your responsibilities. She's doing about 60 hours a week now, including running operations after she goes home.

She had an offer from another company to jump to them, for more money. HOWEVER, due to her husband's chronic illness, if she jumped to the other company their health insurance would not pick up the expensive treatments already covered under her existing company's policy; it would have been one of those pre-existing conditions that the new U.S. health reform is supposed to address. In the meantime, she has no real choice but to stay where she is and take whatever is dished out. And you bet her company knows that.

A lot of people are, at a practical level, trapped in their jobs. It's worse in a bad economy, and not just because of the lack of jobs. A huge number of people are trapped where they are right now because they can't sell their homes for as much as they owe on the mortgage. Others have family obligations - elderly parents, for instance - that tie them to a geography where the number of opportunities for better jobs is limited. Etc.

Theoretically and legally we are all free. Lots of people right now know that sentence comes with an asterisk.

Da Blob · May 3, 2012

Wage slavery can be validly considered a form of slavery for quite often the wages earned are set at subsistence levels. The dirty little secret of Capitalism is that it is totally dependent on that form of slavery to maintain the status quo. Capitalism is great, but only for those who have capital.

I was taught that if a person would work hard, they would be rewarded by their employer, so getting out of college, I worked my butt off. However, after a year I sat down and ran the numbers. It turns out that after meeting the expenses of staying alive and the expenses associated with being employed, I was making a profit of less than 50 cents an hour, $100 dollars a month...

So the status quo of the ruling class was offering me, grudgingly, one day a week of my own life back and twenty dollars a week to live it up with on my day off. This was after I had saved my employer several million dollars by spotting an error in their Quality Control procedures...
:beatyou:

Philosophyking87 · May 3, 2012

Peripheral Visionary said:
Wage slavery?

Slaves don't get wages. That's the point of being a slave.

"It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person."

You're attacking a literal interpretation of a figurative comparison. So of course, no one literally means to say that wage laborers are actually slaves in every sense of the word. It's merely a comparison of many similarities -- one of which is not the accruement of wages, obviously...

Slaves are not able to refuse a job--unlike folks who are working for a wage.

Again, you are focusing on obvious differences between the two, while ignoring many intriguing similarities. So of course slaves cannot refuse a job, while wage laborers can; the lack of real choice is really the similarity of interest which matters.

You are perfectly free to go do something else if you don't care for the monetary compensation.

You say wage laborers can easily do something else if they don't like their wages, yet it's often the case that there exists a lack of feasible alternatives for very low-skilled workers, such that they have very little options to choose from. Essentially, their options often consist of a plethora of bad wages and bad working conditions. So what does it matter if you can "choose," if you have limited, crappy options from which to choose? You see. You're ignoring the big picture.

If you agree to sell your labor on the terms you are offered, you aren't a slave. You have choices, slaves don't.

Of course if you "agree" to sell your labor, you aren't a slave. Again, you're overlooking the significance of the comparison by focusing on obvious differences and a more literal interpretation of the term "wage slave." However, merely agreeing to something, philosophically speaking, doesn't necessarily indicate a state of pure voluntary willingness. If someone blackmails you and tells you to clean their home once a week, you may "agree," out of fear for your life, your reputation, or something else. But should this count as actual willingness? If someone is very low-skilled (and usually, gaining skill often requires education, which often requires an existing amount of wealth), which of course would indicate they bear a low SES (socioeconomic status), they essentially must either work for bad wages, under perhaps bad working conditions, among other problems, or "choose" not to work at all (which of course is irrational, as one is inherently compelled to work in order to make a living). Hence, due to a lack of feasible alternatives, most low-skilled workers don't really have a choice, as rational alternatives do not really exist, such that when a low-skilled worker "agrees" to work, one cannot necessarily say that this agreement is truly a state of pure voluntary willingness. Hence you get the term "quasi-voluntary."

What "wage slave" is intended to disguise is the sense of entitlement felt by those who use that term.

I don't think anti-wage-slavery implies some notion of entitlement of compensation. Instead, it's likely more about questioning a system which allows conditions to arise, such that low-skilled workers lack genuine dignified options as to how they sell their labor. Instead, largely due to the notion of "profits" (which requires paying workers as low as possible), employers may offer very unpleasant job positions, for particular wages, which they know are not dignified. When someone is dependent in some fashion, this usually opens the doors for exploitation of some kind or another. Think of a drug dealer and the people to whom he sells his drugs. Say the drug dealer now wants to charge twice the price he charged last week. Is the drug addict in any real condition to object?

Similarly, the very fact that low-skilled workers (with low SES socioeconomic status) are dependent on wages to make a living gives certain employers in upper-hand in knowing that they have no real alternatives. They will not easily just "give up" and face a life of absolute poverty, such that they are inherently driven -- due to self-interest -- to seek work, no matter how poor the wages or the working conditions. As a result, just as with slavery, there may be no true level of "consent" (but merely the seemingly voluntary "contract" which results from the pressure to work for a living).

Since no one is willing to offer the compensation for the services that the worker thinks he/she is entitled to, it can't be the fault of the worker's lack of marketable skills. It must be "the system."

Do people choose the families into which they are born? Is there any sort of button prior to birth, where you can essentially "choose" what sort of family you wish to live with, possibly getting the choice of what type of "family wealth" you'd like? Clearly, there is not. Clearly, people are born with certain ascribed statuses (such as sex, gender, race, family origins, and ethnicity). Some come into the world with privileged statuses, while others do not. As such, some people will live in better neighborhoods, receive better health and dental care, and generally enjoy a higher quality education. Over time, it's obvious to notice that someone from a privileged background (i.e., higher SES) will generally develop much more skills, have much more resources at their disposal, and many more favorable opportunities from which to choose. Moreover, this sort of socioeconomic advantage leads to a huge inequality when it comes to job competition, such that for reasons largely out of one's control, a person of privilege may have many more opportunities and options in practice, while a person not born of privilege may have many less opportunities and options in practice.

Thus, if indeed someone does not develop a particular level of "marketable skills," as you call them, can we so easily presume that this must be the case due to some fault of the worker themselves? Sorry, but you must realize that people aren't born and raised in bubbles, such that we gain and lose in life based on merely personal effort. While it is true that personal effort counts (and in some cases, it can either get one very far or prevent one from moving entirely), it's also true that many arbitrary social factors bear down upon all people, many which either become a crutch or an aid. And so, it's not always the case that those with low marketable skill should necessarily blame themselves (as it's a fact that many people, even some who have made all the right decisions in life, still go in and out of poverty based on random social factors). This view of life as a game in which you either make A) "good decisions" and profit or B) "bad decisions" and suffer is entirely outmoded, and it perhaps blinds many smart people from realizing the many problems which come with the wage-labor system. As such, the way we allocate jobs and pay workers is incongruent with the reality of social stratification. So, it really is the faults of the system, more so, which accounts for the conditions to which low-skilled workers are often subjected (again, through the social pressure to make a living).

Immigrants don't seem to suffer from this curious delusion.

This example actually works very much against your position. Immigrant laborers often come from worse conditions, where the government is outright corrupt, there is some level of oppression, and jobs are absolutely hard to come by, for one reason or another. As such, immigrant laborers are often in a worse condition than the poorest people living in the country to which the immigrants come. Thus, according to my explanation as to why low-skilled workers really "choose" to work in bad conditions for low wages, it's even more true for immigrants that they are in such a desperate position (like a drug addict) that they will not sit around objecting to working conditions. Instead, they lack reasonable alternatives to such an extent that they will, in a sense, work under any and all conditions. The alternative is clearly facing the prospect of absolutely no jobs whatsoever, and thus, no means of making a living, and thus starvation, poverty, and homelessness.

Thus, it's really unlikely the case that immigrants truly "want" to work in the conditions and for the very low wages they accept. Instead, you have to look at them psychologically and sociologically to truly see what it is that truly motivates them to seek very unfavorable working conditions, such that they must place themselves in personally degrading and undignified positions to others (like members of the Roman social hierarchy who, because of their birth status, were made to wave feathers all day for royalty). In a sense then, modern day wage-labor really is a very indirect version of this, with people essentially "serving" others largely due to differences in ascribed status (and hence, differences in social privilege).

So yeah... there's a very good host of reasons as to why immigrants don't seem to "complain." They're so fucking bogged down by their status and position in the world (part of the many unfortunate and impoverished souls who lack the means to enjoy the various resources of this planet) that they utterly have no real choice but to accept the harsh reality of the modern world's social stratification (with the wealthiest 1% controlling a majority of all the wealth and resources of the planet, while many people starve to death and live in slums in many poor nations).

In conclusion:

It's not about notions of entitlement, but of notions of dignity. And sadly, many people around the world aren't treated in a dignified fashion or respected as human beings; instead, they are treated as cheap commodities, as mere means to someone's ends, and generally are only worth the cheap labor they can provide so that others can continue to make profits and enjoy this world at their expense. Yet "wage slavery" is just an idea thrown around by people who are unsatisfied with their own lives... it's a much larger problem than any one person's life. It's a global epidemic. Go take a look at the working conditions in India and China. The sweat shops where our Apple products are made in scandal.

And again, the only reasons I can think as to why smart people accept these conditions is that they either a) aren't doing so bad in life, b) don't understand enough of social stratification to realize the problem, or c) have been so indoctrinated and socialized to believe in the virtue of the wage system that they are no longer open-minded enough to truly assess its shortcomings from an impartial, unbiased perspective. This country only teaches its civilians the pros of wage labor and free market enterprise, while largely eschewing relevant criticism. So it's only to be expected that most people will hold rather fantastical views of the system itself.

Philosophyking87 · May 3, 2012

EditorOne said:
"You are perfectly free to go do something else if you don't care for the monetary compensation. If you agree to sell your labor on the terms you are offered, you aren't a slave. You have choices, slaves don't."

Caveat here.
Not all are equal in their ability to "do something else." I know a woman who is a middle management supervisor, who does indeed work long unpaid hours because when you hit middle management, you no longer get overtime over 40 hours. You get nothing, but are expected to work however long it takes to fulfill your responsibilities. She's doing about 60 hours a week now, including running operations after she goes home.

She had an offer from another company to jump to them, for more money. HOWEVER, due to her husband's chronic illness, if she jumped to the other company their health insurance would not pick up the expensive treatments already covered under her existing company's policy; it would have been one of those pre-existing conditions that the new U.S. health reform is supposed to address. In the meantime, she has no real choice but to stay where she is and take whatever is dished out. And you bet her company knows that.

A lot of people are, at a practical level, trapped in their jobs. It's worse in a bad economy, and not just because of the lack of jobs. A huge number of people are trapped where they are right now because they can't sell their homes for as much as they owe on the mortgage. Others have family obligations - elderly parents, for instance - that tie them to a geography where the number of opportunities for better jobs is limited. Etc.

Theoretically and legally we are all free. Lots of people right now know that sentence comes with an asterisk.

Thank you for proving my point with a very powerful and realistic illustration. Essentially, there is a huge difference between theoretically holding the power to choose and in actually being able to practice such power. Theoretically, we all do have the freedom of social mobility, the right to choose, and the opportunities that may lead to the ever evasive "American Dream." However, in practice, the reality is much different. In reality, few ever truly move up the ladder with ease; the choices some of us have aren't so expansive and the options aren't so flattering; and the American Dream is a silly notion no smart person seems to any longer accept.

Another example, just to further cement the point, is the Health Care Industry. The Health Care Industry is comprised of a few dominant companies that monopolize the system. So, when some wise ass decides to jack up the rates on customers, they don't expect the customers will make a real fuss. Why? Because the customers know that they can either accept the higher and higher rates or simply opt out of health care entirely (which would clearly leave them vulnerable to many negatives which come with lacking health care). This sort of dependence leads to a state of exploitation, as I said.

Mostly, Peripheral's post was filled with many inaccurate statements that are based on mere illusions about the world, and I'm glad that there are some of us out there who can actually try to demonstrate how it is not exactly the case that people really do have "options" in "open societies." Open societies are those in which it is possible to move away from one's original social position. Closed societies, obviously, are those in which it is either forbidden or incredibly improbable to move away from one's original social position. Yet even if the people living in open societies (like the United States) do have the "opportunity" to overcome their original social status, it's often the case that many people living in open societies generally tend to stay in a relative social position their whole lives, just as in a closed system.

Achieved status vs. ascribed status

Ascribed status is a position assigned to individuals or groups based on traits beyond their control, such as sex, race, or parental social status. This is usually associated with "closed" societies. Achieved status is distinguished from ascribed status by virtue of being earned.

Many positions are a mixture of achievement and ascription; for instance, a person who has achieved the status of being a doctor is more likely to have the ascribed status of being born into a wealthy family. This is usually associated with "open" societies or "social" class societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieved_status#Achieved_status_vs._ascribed_status

Felan · May 3, 2012

I think a lot of the problem is that people aren't willing enough to quit and get a new job and companies are too unwilling to fire those that aren't working out. The reason it works the way it does is because the workers let it work that way. When you see an industry providing more perks and such to lure the best talent to them then Capitalism is working magic.

What we have is not Capitalism but Settle-ism. Too many of the most fit workers settle for the most unfit companies. Not saying that everyone can universally quit, but that so few are willing to has skewed the system into this mode we see. Some people with the capital for companies have figured this and a trend has started, in software development at least, but the concept is pretty universal in my mind.

Da Blob · May 3, 2012

There was a good point made about the paucity of opportunity, Of course, by definition opportunity is a rare temporal event, an option that occurs for a fleeting moment on occasion. The problem from my perspective, is not so much that there is an inequality of opportunity, but rather that the current system allows opportunity to be monopolized/controlled by a corrupt 'ruling class'.

Perhaps, one of the best examples, are all of the 'loopholes' written into law that provide opportunities for just a select few. Who or what is offering real opportunities these days?

Any change in the environment can be viewed as threat or opportunity, but it seems as if most of us can only deal with change as threat, for the means to deal with change as opportunity has been taken away (?)

ProxyAmenRa · May 3, 2012

God forbid having to work to maintain one's existence. That's like slavery! Slavery to the nature of one's existence. Similar to all other organisms on earth. All enslaved by their nature. To remedy the situation everyone should not work and simply get given the sustenance to maintain one's existence. That'll show them! Yeah!!!

Philosophyking87 · May 3, 2012

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Educate yourself.

ProxyAmenRa · May 3, 2012

Philosophyking87 said:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Educate yourself.

If I have misunderstood your position on the subject at hand, by all means please enlighten me. Provide some clarification so that I am no longer burdened ignorance.

Philosophyking87 · May 3, 2012

Uh-huh...

Until someone posts something of substance...
I'll let my words speak for themselves.

ProxyAmenRa · May 3, 2012

Philosophyking87 said:
I'll let my words speak for themselves.

They tell me that you hold a perverse perception of reality. Somehow in your mind a voluntary arrangement is slavery and now you're propagating such nonsense. There is a term for what you're trying to construct. It is called 'doublethink'. I suggest you research it.

Kuu · May 3, 2012

ProxyAmenRa said:
They tell me that you hold a perverse perception of reality. Somehow in your mind a voluntary arrangement is slavery and now you're propagating such nonsense.

I do believe that was already addressed in one of his posts. One has to ponder if you even read it...

Fukyo · May 3, 2012

ProxyAmenRa said:
Somehow in your mind a voluntary arrangement is slavery and now you're propagating such nonsense.

On the other side of the coin awaits unemployment and all its charms. It's a really promising and empowering alternative choice.

thatsummer · May 3, 2012

Wage slavery is completely real. If it wasn't we wouldn't need things like unemployment insurance and minimum wage. While it shouldn't exist in our INTP heads, you have to remember that a large percentage of the population have a dominate introverted perception (SJ/NJ or in function form Si/Ni). They don't see all the options like us. Even if you do see the options, switching jobs is very stressful.

Don't mind me · May 4, 2012

Fukyo said:
On the other side of the coin awaits unemployment and all its charms. It's a really promising and empowering alternative choice.

@ProxyAmenRa
@Peripheral Visionary

Why does the other side of the coin look like this? Might there be anything that, I don't know, lowers workers' opportunity costs?

ProxyAmenRa · May 4, 2012

Kuu said:
I do believe that was already addressed in one of his posts. One has to ponder if you even read it...

You're correct. I have not read his post. His argument will be nothing that I have not read before. It would appear to me that people have simply forgotten my near ad-infunitum posts refuting such preposterous notions that seems to equate a voluntary interaction as involuntary and the remedy to such a problem is to create involuntary interactions. If his world was realized whom would be slave to whom? Would it be the wage earners or the people who desire the work to be performed? If you're confused, it would be the latter. People would be forced to cater to the fancies of Philosophyking87 just because they and the would be wage earners exist. The results would be the destruction of wealth in society. Then you will have your equality. Everyone equally as poor as one another and the supposed philosophers being more equal than everyone else.

Fukyo said:
On the other side of the coin awaits unemployment and all its charms. It's a really promising and empowering alternative choice.

In life, sometimes you have to make hard decisions. Weight the pros and cons of difficult situations. Get over it. Just because life is sometimes hard does not create an obligation for others to sacrifice themselves or be put up to be sacrificed.

ProxyAmenRa · May 4, 2012

Most of you hold the fear of failure and thus in turn fear making decisions because of the possibility of failure. To alleviate your fears, you wish to shift the burden of having to make decisions onto others without their consent. This is the heart of the issue at hand.

Failure is not so bad. I know. I have failed many times in my life.

thatsummer · May 4, 2012

ProxyAmenRa said:
Most of you hold the fear of failure and thus in turn fear making decisions because of the possibility of failure. To alleviate your fears, you wish to shift the burden of having to make decisions onto others without their consent. This is the heart of the issue at hand.

Failure is not so bad. I know. I have failed many times in my life.

huh? This isnt anything about me. No one here said they were in a slave wage situation. I think the OP was merely pointing out its existence.

Yes, yes you are failing right now. You are failing to have an intelligent discussion and thinking about anyone elses' perspective.

ProxyAmenRa · May 4, 2012

thatsummer said:
huh? This isnt anything about me. No one here said they were in a slave wage situation. I think the OP was merely pointing out its existence.

Yes, yes you are failing right now. You are failing to have an intelligent discussion and think about anyone elses' perspective.

I have debated all of those arguments put forward in the past and have displayed why they're fallacious. I find it quite strange that people continue to propagate the nonsense even though they had already lost the debate. Obviously, there is something else at play.

Philosophyking87 · May 4, 2012

thatsummer said:
Yes, yes you are failing right now. You are failing to have an intelligent discussion and think about anyone elses' perspective.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

ProxyAmenRa said:
I have debated all of those arguments put forward in the past and have displayed why they're fallacious. I find it quite strange that people continue to propagate the nonsense even though they had already lost the debate. Obviously, there is something else at play.

This smacks of offensive anti-intellectualism and hasty generalization.

Even if the majority of people you have encountered have not made strong arguments - at least in your view - against your own preferred way of living, it does not necessarily mean that you should dig a hole, stick your head in it, and close off to anything anyone else has to say, automatically thinking your views are inherently infallible.

In essence, a basic philosophical rule of thumb is that you don't judge an idea by the manner in which it has been presented, but instead on its own independent merits. As such, it does not make sense to conclude that an idea is incorrect, erroneous, or faulty for any other reason than because the idea inherently fails the test of reason. For example, a number of simple people can try to argue the notion that Earth is not flat, and perhaps they will fail to persuade anyone. It would clearly make no sense, in such a case, to assume that just because the idea of a non-flat Earth was presented badly that the idea is, therefore, less likely true.

Therefore, it clearly makes no sense, logically, to generalize all similar arguments in such a way that the faults of one must naturally indicate something about the potential faults of another. Even if two arguments are created for the same purpose, and definitely seem similar, it does not follow (non-sequitur) that they are necessarily the same, and therefore, must bear the same exact fallacies (as one argument may clearly hold a fallacy while another, no matter how similar, may not). And therefore, it's intellectually irresponsible to simply presume the nature of any particular argument in such a premature fashion.

Perhaps your point (about why people continue to propagate, in your view, "bad arguments") would make sense, if indeed your analysis of these various arguments were made public, such that people would know of them on a grand scale. As it stands, however, you have likely argued on mere internet forums, and perhaps a while back, such that not everyone here is going to be aware of your supposed exposing of the various fallacies you suggest are so common among these types of arguments.

Overall, your lack of tolerance of the very possibility that you may be incorrect, while some people may potentially hold an argument strong enough to challenge your own views, only seems to come off as both dogmatic and narrow-minded, which clearly defeats the purpose of posting on internet message boards.

thatsummer · May 4, 2012

From context clues, I think proxy is an IFSJ. Which is fine, but I'd structure my views differently with different types. Anyways.....

Philosophyking87 · May 4, 2012

thatsummer said:
From context clues, I think proxy is an IFSJ. Which is fine, but I'd structure my views differently with different types. Anyways.....

If I had to guess, I'd go with a very uptight -- stick directly up the rectum -- INTJ.
But who knows. And really, who cares. He's just an egotistical troll who enjoys spewing his nasty, close-minded prejudices all over some random forum.

What really matters is whether or not there truly is enough warrant for the term "wage-slave." And given Proxy's apparent inability to participate with an open mind like a mature adult, I'd say we can really start to just ignore the guy entirely.

Let the discussion continue; don't feed the trolls.

Da Blob · May 4, 2012

Of course everyone is correct from their own point of view. However, what is this slavery that we are referring to? Perhaps a definition should be agreed upon?

Someone has made the point that slavery is an involuntary condition. This is not the case, few Native Americans chose a life of slavery over death. They made such terrible slaves that the wealthy had to import their labor all the way from Africa at a tremendous cost. So modern Americans choose the option of wage slavery at subsistence level over death, to me it means that slavery has evolved into a more efficient means of maintaining a labor force, not that the exploitation and oppression of the poor by the rich has changed all that much.

slavery |ˈslāvərē|
noun
the state of being a slave

• the practice or system of owning slaves.
• a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom :
• excessive dependence on or devotion to something

Synonym: Bondage
Antonym: Freedom

From my own POV, this rhetorical displacement of slavery as an element of the Past is not realistic. The slave trade is booming, not even factoring in wage slaves, incarcerated work forces, domestic slavery and the other forms of humans treating each other as domesticated animals, there are more held in slavery in 2012, than in all of history.

Drugs seem to be one of the politically-correct means of enslavement. The Big Pharmaceuticals produce exponentially more addictive substance than can be sold legally and apparently that is just fine with the authorities. A drug addict is often a slave to another human (as well as the drug), the drug dealer or other supplier of the SOMA...

Wage slaves, addicts, inmates and most of the women and children of the world are held in bondage and exploited, but technically they might not be slaves according to some traditional definition, the antonym of freedom. Instead it is the state of the population in a Brave New World that uses Cowardly, Old Tricks to subjugate in the name of profit and disguise it as an altruistic endeavor.

Sorry for the rant/ramble, it is too late at night for me to try to do this correctly...

Darby · May 4, 2012

Da Blob said:
slavery |ˈslāvərē|
noun
the state of being a slave

• excessive dependence on or devotion to something

Just to clarify this single point, this definition right here claiming "excessive dependence" is exactly what we're talking about, am I right? We're currently deciding whether or not the term "wage slave" is considered "excessively dependent" or not.

Now, from my perspective being forced to choose between shitty working conditions for very low pay, and not working/having zero income automatically makes you dependent on the employer, and the person who is paying you. However, where is the line drawn? to say that when your opportunity for moving up is relatively zero, so the only move is down, does that create excessive dependence? Then if you have a good job with decent pay and benefits, but perhaps there is a reason that you will be unable to be hired by another company at equal rates or higher, are you considered a wage slave simply because your only move is down?

Also, in regards to trying to define slavery as being forced to work without wages. You can always make the argument that you can choose not to, but the consequences are more direct, physical harm, starvation, death. Whereas with a wage slave, these things may happen, but it would take longer, or they wouldn't be directly punished. So I'm a little unclear as to why the attempt was made to argue that they were drastically different. Unless someone is quite literally in your brain making decisions and controlling your body without your consent, ultimately you're the one making the decisions, and just because your one "better" choice is awful doesn't make it not a choice.

MissQuote · May 4, 2012

Perhaps a wage slave is a slave to their actual wages. If we were to define a wage slave as one who is at the very lowest of pay scale and without opportunity to move up due to life circumstances.

Wages are what are used to obtain the necessities of life.

In the past when a "traditional" definition of slavery was an actuality the slave owner was required to keep his or her slaves alive by providing them with basic food and shelter, otherwise the slave would die off and not be of much use (except as fertilize I suppose). There were incurred costs to owning slaves.

In our current society a worker in a low wage job is expected to use the small monetary wages earned to seek out and provide themselves with the necessities of life.

The worker is no longer slave to a human master whom they cannot leave but who does provide at least the minimum necessary to keep them alive and able to work.

But more of a slave to the wages that need to be earned in order to provide themselves with the necessities. They may leave an employer at will, but can they leave their wages at will?

If one is only working for the benefit of themselves, to keep themselves alive, then leaving ones slave wages without a defined better opportunity drawn out in front of them is a lot easier than if other dependents are added to the mixture.

Kuu · May 4, 2012

Cognisant said:
perhaps we could all be better off if industry was focused on the basics of life rather than the latest and greatest, but that's a boring world with plain clothes, plain food and plain accommodation.

Your comment clearly comes from a relatively well-off, comfortable middle class perspective, where survival is not at immediate risk and entertainment takes a more central role.

I dare you visit a so-called "third world" nation, look into the eyes of a struggling low-class family that has known nothing but exploitation, hunger, and constant disease and abuse and say to their faces that you think the basic necessities for a dignified life are "boring".

Cognisant said:
Rather I see the world we have now as being if nothing else better than the world we had before, and it will get better still, compared to bygone eras the "middle class" of today live like kings and in the future, as this great machine of ours become increasingly automated, production will out compete supply and wealthy lifestyle by today's standards will be available to all.

One would have to question if the predominant hierarchical society would allow everyone the fruits of such increased automation. One would also have to question if we actually *need* more automation than we have today to cover the basic necessities of most humans. I'd wager we have, at present, all the technical capacity and all the resources necessary to better the lot of the vast masses of mankind.

Peripheral Visionary said:
What "wage slave" is intended to disguise is the sense of entitlement felt by those who use that term. Since no one is willing to offer the compensation for the services that the worker thinks he/she is entitled to, it can't be the fault of the worker's lack of marketable skills. It must be "the system."

There are a lot of services that are exchanged and labor produced daily that isn't "marketable". They aren't worthless, yet the prevailing economic system does not consider them of value, or at least not valuable enough to be compensated monetarily. Even if they keep the cogs of civilization running. Historically, one could look at the vastly unpaid domestic labor of housewives for an example, one of the many reasons for the rise of feminism. In this manner, the current economic system has a lot of hidden goods and hidden costs that are blatantly ignored, neglecting a great amount of human work and suffering, and could only be perceived as fair and decently functional if one, by delusion or deliberate intent, overlooks its faulty accounting.

Does man exist for a functional "efficient" economy, or does a functional "efficient" economy exist for man?

Also delusional is the denial of a long history of structural abuse and exploitation ("the system"), and its continuation to the present...

Peripheral Visionary said:
Immigrants don't seem to suffer from this curious delusion.

This has already been covered by Philosophyking, but still. Wage-slavery and absolute frustration with lack of opportunities (if not outright violence) is the fundamental reason for migration. People abandon their families, their culture and risk their lives and few possessions to travel dangerously and illegally to strange and hostile places in order to not starve to death. Sadly, they can only move from crushing despair into lowly wage-slavery in another land, a meagre consolation at best...

ProxyAmenRa said:
God forbid having to work to maintain one's existence. That's like slavery! Slavery to the nature of one's existence. Similar to all other organisms on earth. All enslaved by their nature. To remedy the situation everyone should not work and simply get given the sustenance to maintain one's existence. That'll show them! Yeah!!!

Nobody said anything about not working. You assume too much, and then throw out straw men.

ProxyAmenRa said:
You're correct. I have not read his post. His argument will be nothing that I have not read before. It would appear to me that people have simply forgotten my near ad-infunitum posts refuting such preposterous notions that seems to equate a voluntary interaction as involuntary and the remedy to such a problem is to create involuntary interactions. (Blah blah blah assumptions assumptions)

The only preposterous thing I see in this thread is claiming to counter an argument one has not even read. Certainly you have written extensively about related topics, but I see in this more knee-jerk reaction to a handful of key words that actual consideration of arguments. I wonder, if you find so little fulfillment and so much frustration in these discussions, why do you even continue to try? Perhaps it would be a better use of your and our time to just let us debate our "preposterous notions". Nevermind the fact that nobody is talking here about any "remedies", but merely pointing out what some would consider a topical issue worthy of concern.

ProxyAmenRa said:
Most of you hold the fear of failure and thus in turn fear making decisions because of the possibility of failure. To alleviate your fears, you wish to shift the burden of having to make decisions onto others without their consent. This is the heart of the issue at hand.

Failure is not so bad. I know. I have failed many times in my life.

I do agree that the heart of the issue at hand is fundamentally about consent, but that is the extent of our agreement. To me the issue is clearly that some people go through life as if it were a cut-throat social darwinist competition, lambasting those without means of laziness or incapacity, while those others born or pushed into abusive conditions without their consent would clearly prefer a different, perhaps more cooperative, arrangement if only they had the economic and political power to achieve it.

A word of advice (free of charge!):
You really need to get off that high horse of yours.

MissQuote said:
The worker is no longer slave to a human master whom they cannot leave but who does provide at least the minimum necessary to keep them alive and able to work.

But more of a slave to the wages that need to be earned in order to provide themselves with the necessities. They may leave an employer at will, but can they leave their wages at will?

Now we approach the meat of the matter: the lack of possibilities for independent self-sustenance.

MissQuote said:
If one is only working for the benefit of themselves, to keep themselves alive, then leaving ones slave wages without a defined better opportunity drawn out in front of them is a lot easier than if other dependents are added to the mixture.

In agrarian societies, more children usually meant a better chance of survival. In our post-industrial urbanized societies, children are a liability. One among many reasons I'm not breeding.

ProxyAmenRa · May 4, 2012

Kuu said:
The only preposterous thing I see in this thread is claiming to counter an argument one has not even read. Certainly you have written extensively about related topics, but I see in this more knee-jerk reaction to a handful of key words that actual consideration of arguments. I wonder, if you find so little fulfillment and so much frustration in these discussions, why do you even continue to try? Perhaps it would be a better use of your and our time to just let us debate our "preposterous notions". Nevermind the fact that nobody is talking here about any "remedies", but merely pointing out what some would consider a topical issue worthy of concern.

I have posted over two thousand posts on this forum. The greater majority of them consist of debating issues much like the one at hand. I have discussed in great detail of both micro and macro economics. Not just the school of economics I am a fan of but all schools. Written posts on what would amount to a brief of the major works and publications over 2800 years in the fields of epistemology and philosophy. My point is that I have clearly demonstrated over the years that I hold vast knowledge and sound understanding of the subjects which I speak on. This is only my hobby. I hold expertise in multiple fields of engineering, business and finance.

Yes, I have discussed/debated this topic in the past a few times with many on this forum and I won the debate. Yet, you're all here spouting the same crap all over again. Ignorance is not an excuse.

No one is stupid enough to believe when you and others spout such nonsense there is no implicit motive to provide remedies.

Now where does my frustration begin? It would appear that all the well reasoned arguments based on reason and evidence with references were for naught. Obviously all I achieved was upsetting people's sensibilities. Before entering the world of internet forums, I never knew the extent at which people shed tears when reality is exposed to them. I distinctly remember you protesting the very thought of analysing social programs under economics vis a vis epistemology. It conflicted with your perception of reality, hence your tears.

My only miscalculation was to expect from other people no less than what I expect of myself. What became evident was that my standards for other people were too high.

Now all I want is more of your tears.

Kuu said:
A word of advice (free of charge!):
You really need to get off that high horse of yours.

I don't take advice from people who have done nothing to earn my respect.

snafupants · May 4, 2012

ProxyAmenRa said:
I have posted over two thousand posts on this forum. The greater majority of them consist of debating issues much like the one at hand. I have discussed in great detail of both micro and macro economics. Not just the school of economics I am a fan of but all schools. Written posts on what would amount to a brief of the major works and publications over 2800 years in the fields of epistemology and philosophy. My point is that I have clearly demonstrated over the years that I hold vast knowledge and sound understanding of the subjects which I speak on. This is only my hobby. I hold expertise in multiple fields of engineering, business and finance.

Yes, I have discussed/debated this topic in the past a few times with many on this forum and I won the debate. Yet, you're all here spouting the same crap all over again. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Now where does my frustration begin? It would appear that all the well reasoned arguments based on reason and evidence with references were for naught. Obviously all I achieved was upsetting people's sensibilities. Before entering the world of internet forums, I never knew the extent at which people shed tears when reality is exposed to them. I distinctly remember you protesting the very thought of analysing social programs under economics vis a vis epistemology. It conflicted with your perception of reality, hence your tears.

My only miscalculation was to expect from other people no less than what I expect of myself. What became evident was that my standards for other people was too high.

Now all I want is more of your tears.

I don't take advice from people who have done nothing to earn my respect.

Were these predominately self-declared victories? Operationally define victory please.

Perhaps other members feel as though you haven't earned their respect.

You seem to belittle people as much as you discuss the issues at hand.

My discernment: your arrogance belies your level of input as determined by its quality.

ProxyAmenRa · May 4, 2012

snafupants said:
Were these predominately self-declared victories? Operationally define victory please.

That thread where I declared victory was trending towards the ridiculous. They were concocting hypothetical scenarios for me to perform economic analyses in order to attempt to find one so complex or strange that I could not explain. Ergo, I put a stop to it because it was no longer a reasonable discussion.

snafupants said:
Perhaps other members feel as though you haven't earned their respect.

You seem to belittle people as much as you discuss the issues at hand.

It is interesting to note that I am not the person who initiated the belittling. I just continued it. Zensunni deserves the credit.

I have been sarcastic to many people such as the ones who think you can structure a complex economy without the price determination mechanism. The only two people I can't think of that I have belittled was Zensunni and Philosophyking.

snafupants said:
My discernment: your arrogance belies your level of input as determined by its quality.

Such is life.

thatsummer · May 4, 2012

You guys are talking the "slave" part of slave-wages a bit to literally. It is a made up term. Like the wiki said, "It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor..." Social mobility is hard. How hard is subjective. If an employer leverages people's fears to pay them lower wages, that is a slave wage situation. Like everything, it is completely subjective and sort-of-unique for every individual. It can also happen at any level of compensation. You could make $100k a year but really be worth $200k. If your boss leverages your fear of uncertainty to make you stay at your current job at your current salary, I'd consider that a slave wage situation. Of course no one is going to feel sorry for you, nor is anyone going to do anything to help you out. Regardless, the uses of any fear, psychological or physical, is unethical.

Philosophyking87 · May 4, 2012

Da Blob said:
Wage slaves, addicts, inmates and most of the women and children of the world are held in bondage and exploited, but technically they might not be slaves according to some traditional definition, the antonym of freedom. Instead it is the state of the population in a Brave New World that uses Cowardly, Old Tricks to subjugate in the name of profit and disguise it as an altruistic endeavor.

Kuu said:
I dare you visit a so-called "third world" nation, look into the eyes of a struggling low-class family that has known nothing but exploitation, hunger, and constant disease and abuse and say to their faces that you think the basic necessities for a dignified life are "boring".

This has already been covered by Philosophyking, but still. Wage-slavery and absolute frustration with lack of opportunities (if not outright violence) is the fundamental reason for migration. People abandon their families, their culture and risk their lives and few possessions to travel dangerously and illegally to strange and hostile places in order to not starve to death. Sadly, they can only move from crushing despair into lowly wage-slavery in another land, a meagre consolation at best...

Aye!

Kuu said:
Nobody said anything about not working. You assume too much, and then throw out straw men.

Indeed.

Nevermind the fact that nobody is talking here about any "remedies", but merely pointing out what some would consider a topical issue worthy of concern.

I also thought it was funny to see Proxy speak of "programs and policies," when no one ever said a thing about "how" things could be changed, but merely that wage-slavery perhaps exists (although I do think the notion of entertaining new/different means of labor would likely have come up at some point). It's as if he has a little crystal ball with which he can forecast the future... which ultimately amounts to a giant presumption. =|

I do agree that the heart of the issue at hand is fundamentally about consent, but that is the extent of our agreement. To me the issue is clearly that some people go through life as if it were a cut-throat social darwinist competition, lambasting those without means of laziness or incapacity, while those others born or pushed into abusive conditions without their consent would clearly prefer a different, perhaps more cooperative, arrangement if only they had the economic and political power to achieve it.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.

I have not once spoken of "cooperative arrangements," but that's clearly one of the potential alternatives to wage labor, along with the notion of a democratic economy. Certainly if anyone is a bit "hesitant" of relatively untested "new systems," lots of consideration would clearly go into the pros and cons, such that we could discuss this forever before any actual changes are made in the real world. But the point isn't to immediately change the world, if indeed conditions are unjust; the point is to at least start discussing the issue at all, so that we can possibly test the idea that the wage labor system truly is necessary. It's all about trying to make improvements, and I see no harm in merely discussing the possible areas where a little progression might be helpful to people.

Largely, though, I think anyone wishing to discuss this matter must have a basic understanding of sociology: how people are affected by their social environment, how our different backgrounds can impede or improve our lives, how there is often a "dominant" group in any population which overlooks one or more "subordinate" groups, such that the notion of "economic and political power" truly is fundamental to understanding how people actually interact in an economy at all. As it stands, an economy isn't some isolated institution, where people who are completely equal go out and, with absolute fairness, engage in interactions. An economy is made up of people, families, communities, and therefore, any interactions or activity which goes on in an economy is definitely going to involve social factors (such that the term "socioeconomics" has been conceived to begin to study those particular dynamics).

What's clear from the start, even if we may not know everything there is to know about the relationship between social status and economic status, is that there is likely a certain positive correlation between the two, such that the higher one's SES (socioeconomic status), the more opportunities one has, and the more resources one can consume. Thus, given economics is largely based on the allocation of scarce resources (or goods), it's easy to see how differences in social status clearly lead to some having more to consume (and therefore, a relatively higher quality of living) while some clearly have less to consume (due to the correlation between social and economic status, SES).

Examinations of socioeconomic status often reveal inequities in access to resources, plus issues related to privilege, power and control. --

http://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/index.aspx

A word of advice (free of charge!):
You really need to get off that high horse of yours.

No kidding.

Now we approach the meat of the matter: the lack of possibilities for independent self-sustenance.

This problem wouldn't really matter if the current working conditions were simply improved. Here's another great idea that might help with this problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

In agrarian societies, more children usually meant a better chance of survival. In our post-industrial urbanized societies, children are a liability. One among many reasons I'm not breeding.

And that's only one of the many problems with the "post-industrial" society. People really need to start taking a serious look at how society is changing, and how if we don't make some improvements, the snowball will keep going and going until humans can hardly manage to wake up every morning (as if things aren't bad enough as it is now). The modern world pushes people to the limits.

Here's a really huge thing that's bother me about the way society is changing: it's becoming much more materialistic, much more concerned with profits, results, and utility. My worry is, when will we become so obsessed with these things that even a basic painting will no longer matter to us? When will we completely forsake art and poetry altogether, as they are merely "leisure" materials? What does this say of our changing culture, when the only things that matter are science and practical skills? Making bombs, building aircraft, and bigger and better science facilities.

So far, I've managed to start referring to it as "The Dark Age of Scientism."

It's anti-intellectual, it's anit-philosophical, and it's only concerned with finding new ways to manipulate and exploit the world around us. It all starts with the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. It has now spread throughout the world, with virtually every country now wanting a piece of the action.

George Carlin had it right:

It's going to be a big smoking ball of shit, a big, smoking, flaming, stinking ball of gaseous shit. That's what's gonna happen. That's what's gonna happen. It's irresponsible to have more than one child. Have one. Have one child, replacement value for yourself, that's all.

ProxyAmenRa said:
I have posted over two thousand posts on this forum. The greater majority of them consist of debating issues much like the one at hand.

I have already pointed out the error in believing there to be any relevance in having done the things you claim you have done. Even if you have done these things, it doesn't justify your behavior here, as if indeed you are so inherently "right" about economics, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard at all to explain to others why they are wrong, in a short, concise summarized fashion. Yet all you've done up to this point is make ad hominem attacks, straw mens, and many other fallacious statements, rather than actually stick to the issue at hand.

This is absolutely shameful, and there's no excuse for it.

I have discussed in great detail of both micro and macro economics. Not just the school of economics I am a fan of but all schools. Written posts on what would amount to a brief of the major works and publications over 2800 years in the fields of epistemology and philosophy. My point is that I have clearly demonstrated over the years that I hold vast knowledge and sound understanding of the subjects which I speak on. This is only my hobby. I hold expertise in multiple fields of engineering, business and finance.

Again, what you may or may not have "demonstrated" over the years is irrelevant. Not everyone who is now posting was here to witness your supposed intellectual "victories" and "conquests." Therefore, if indeed you are going to post at all in any new threads, either a) summarize your earlier points or b) don't post at all. It makes no sense to go into a thread and start shooting everything down on the basis that you evidently got it in your head that you are some kind of infallible debater who, by the very fact of his track record, now alone holds the privilege of being able to merely go from thread to thread saying, "No, you don't know what you're talking about."

An intellectually honest person would not stoop so low.

Yes, I have discussed/debated this topic in the past a few times with many on this forum and I won the debate. Yet, you're all here spouting the same crap all over again. Ignorance is not an excuse.

First of all, even if you had the better arguments, it doesn't mean your position is absolutely sound. Perhaps there are smarter people not on this forum who could easily squash your position. Hence, to win a debate on a single forum (especially an MBTI forum) only says something about your positions, to an extent. Had you defeated people with PhDs and world-leading scientists, philosophers, and people with various awards, I would be impressed and would then likely see it as you are unlikely an easy person with which to discuss these matters. But an internet forum is relatively small in the world of success and accolades, such that it doesn't really count as much as you think it does.

Moreover, you seem to suggest that because you won the debate (at least you claim), you now have bragging rights and the rights to various spoils of intellectual war, which is utterly ridiculous. Winning a debate, if indeed one has done so, does not excuse the poor, egotistical and pompous behavior one may begin to express as a result. It only means that one's position is strong and that, therefore, those of differing viewpoints can learn much from someone with a viewpoint so strong. Yet you do not go about things in the appropriate manner at all. Rather than summarize and explain why you believe certain views are incorrect, you resort to "mere assertions" without offering an ounce of rational support. Nothing excuses this, as one must always explain why they hold something to be true, because despite how many people you may have defeated in the past, it's always possible for someone smart to come along who can see the one flaw in your reasoning that no one ever noticed before.

So, in short, none of this really excuses your behavior.
You're acting like a baboon.
Get it fixed.

No one is stupid enough to believe when you and others spout such nonsense there is no implicit motive to provide remedies.

There is a motive, but you were speaking of these "remedies" as if they had already been mentioned, when in fact they had not. So even if it was likely to occur, it was still presumptuous to attempt address them as if you absolutely knew what they would be. That is, again, poor intellectual behavior.

Cegorach · May 4, 2012

@ProxyAmenRa

If you're not going to continue in debating these issues and instead are going to resort to putting down your opponents to get a feeling of superiority then I'm going to have to ask you to remove yourself from such discussions.

I've said this many times to many people before you, but this is a forum for discussion, not for putting people down due to your emotional disposition. I could care less who is right or wrong in regards to the issue being discussed, just compose yourself in a manner conducive to debate and consider the actual topic when responding; we shouldn't have a problem if you can keep that in mind.

On the other hand, if you refuse to remove yourself and have no intention of acting maturely, assuming that your own preferences, feelings and opinions are more important than healthy debate on the forum, then I will not hesitate to remove you myself.

Darby · May 4, 2012

Just recently read this through a friends post, thought it might be worth the read. Specifically for Philosophyking87, considering they/you brought up the deterioration of the arts in your last post.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/8808-when-civilizations-die#.T6PyzUzts_g.facebook

Peripheral Visionary · May 5, 2012

There are, unfortunately, too many posts since my last visit to be able to address every point and issue, so if what I have to say misses something someone made in a novel length tome, please forgive me, I'm not trying to be intellectually dishonest.

First, yes I literally interpreted the term "wage slave." Guilty as charged. Then I addressed the implication behind it, though not thoroughly enough it seems.

What happens is this:

Person A offers a job for X wage. Person B agrees to accept that wage and conditions, or he doesn't. This is a mutual, agreed upon contract that two parties freely accept without force or coercion.

Now, certainly it is true that person B might have no other options except to take the job if he'd rather not, because his immediate alternative is to be homeless and starve. Certainly someone in that position deserves sympathy and compassion--assuming that he is incapable of obtaining more job skills or education, AND that his employment options will somehow remain absolutely fixed with no hope of changing forever, AND that his situation did not arise through poor choices and life decisions.

So you want to say that person B in this instance is--not a literal slave--but a metaphorical one? Speaking as someone who has worked jobs at times that I didn't want to take but had few other options, I find that insulting. I cannot speak for the rest of humanity that chooses to soldier on despite difficulties. Also, I can't speak for people who have been actual slaves, but at first blush I would think the analogy outrageous, as well as making light of the horrid conditions actual slaves have endured. But we aren't here to quibble about my personal feelings on the term.

No, my real beef with "wage slave" is that it is abstract language masking what the cure ultimately leads to, which is making Person A the slave.

Because if you believe that person A is offering something "undignified," and must be made to offer more, then what you really want is to introduce force into the equation. If person A offers a job at X rate, and B wants more, you want to force A to pony up. And the only way that can be accomplished is to introduce armed government jackboots to threaten A with jail or death. Either that, or artificially reduce the pool of labor that A has to choose from, creating a labor "shortage" that forces A to fork over.

Thus A becomes becomes the "wage slave," forced to bear responsibility for B's situation, in the belief that you can cure a unfortunate situation for B by enacting an injustice on A.

Because A will eventually go out of business paying more for labor than the market will bear, and soon the streets will be flooded with lots of B's demanding jobs, except that there are no A's to provide them. Just ask the Greeks.

Now if "looking at the system" means something else that is not going to lead to somebody pulling out a gun, then I will entertain clarifications. If someone wishes to argue that A only has capital because property is theft, and therefore he has "stolen" from B, well... I don't have time to refute Marx in all his glory, so I will give you the field.

thatsummer · May 5, 2012

Peripheral Visionary said:
There are, unfortunately, too many posts since my last visit to be able to address every point and issue, so if what I have to say misses something someone made in a novel length tome, please forgive me, I'm not trying to be intellectually dishonest.

First, yes I literally interpreted the term "wage slave." Guilty as charged. Then I addressed the implication behind it, though not thoroughly enough it seems.

What happens is this:

Person A offers a job for X wage. Person B agrees to accept that wage and conditions, or he doesn't. This is a mutual, agreed upon contract that two parties freely accept without force or coercion.

Now, certainly it is true that person B might have no other options except to take the job if he'd rather not, because his immediate alternative is to be homeless and starve. Certainly someone in that position deserves sympathy and compassion--assuming that he is incapable of obtaining more job skills or education, AND that his employment options will somehow remain absolutely fixed with no hope of changing forever, AND that his situation did not arise through poor choices and life decisions.

So you want to say that person B in this instance is--not a literal slave--but a metaphorical one? Speaking as someone who has worked jobs at times that I didn't want to take but had few other options, I find that insulting. I cannot speak for the rest of humanity that chooses to soldier on despite difficulties. Also, I can't speak for people who have been actual slaves, but at first blush I would think the analogy outrageous, as well as making light of the horrid conditions actual slaves have endured. But we aren't here to quibble about my personal feelings on the term.

No, my real beef with "wage slave" is that it is abstract language masking what the cure ultimately leads to, which is making Person A the slave.

Because if you believe that person A is offering something "undignified," and must be made to offer more, then what you really want is to introduce force into the equation. If person A offers a job at X rate, and B wants more, you want to force A to pony up. And the only way that can be accomplished is to introduce armed government jackboots to threaten A with jail or death. Either that, or artificially reduce the pool of labor that A has to choose from, creating a labor "shortage" that forces A to fork over.

Thus A becomes becomes the "wage slave," forced to bear responsibility for B's situation, in the belief that you can cure a unfortunate situation for B by enacting an injustice on A.

Because A will eventually go out of business paying more for labor than the market will bear, and soon the streets will be flooded with lots of B's demanding jobs, except that there are no A's to provide them. Just ask the Greeks.

Now if "looking at the system" means something else that is not going to lead to somebody pulling out a gun, then I will entertain clarifications. If someone wishes to argue that A only has capital because property is theft, and therefore he has "stolen" from B, well... I don't have time to refute Marx in all his glory, so I will give you the field.

Id enjoy your feed back on my post.

You guys are talking the "slave" part of slave-wages a bit to literally. It is a made up term. Like the wiki said, "It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor..." Social mobility is hard. How hard is subjective. If an employer leverages people's fears to pay them lower wages, that is a slave wage situation. Like everything, it is completely subjective and sort-of-unique for every individual. It can also happen at any level of compensation. You could make $100k a year but really be worth $200k. If your boss leverages your fear of uncertainty to make you stay at your current job at your current salary, I'd consider that a slave wage situation. Of course no one is going to feel sorry for you, nor is anyone going to do anything to help you out. Regardless, the uses of any fear, psychological or physical, is unethical.

In your situation A's employer gets rich. In my both A and B's employer can get rich, and only the workers get screwed.

Philosophyking87 · May 5, 2012

Here's a very interesting article which is somewhat relevant to the topic of this thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-literally-of-the-most-important-curve-in-economics/256530/

It essentially speaks of "variance of skill" and the "variance of income," largely due to a lack of educational/training equality (which as I said is somewhat, if not entirely, related to SES -- socioeconomic status).

Essentially, lassez-faire and trickle-down policies don't necessarily make everyone better off; instead, they make "some" a lot better off than the rest of us. Thus, the solution is, instead, to "ensure high-skill education and training for everyone." Moreover, there is a need for political decisions unhampered by wealth. In sum, there's a need for a "shift from market economics to political and social economy."

Read and enjoy.

Da Blob · May 5, 2012

Darby said:
Just to clarify this single point, this definition right here claiming "excessive dependence" is exactly what we're talking about, am I right? We're currently deciding whether or not the term "wage slave" is considered "excessively dependent" or not.

Now, from my perspective being forced to choose between shitty working conditions for very low pay, and not working/having zero income automatically makes you dependent on the employer, and the person who is paying you. However, where is the line drawn? to say that when your opportunity for moving up is relatively zero, so the only move is down, does that create excessive dependence? Then if you have a good job with decent pay and benefits, but perhaps there is a reason that you will be unable to be hired by another company at equal rates or higher, are you considered a wage slave simply because your only move is down?

Also, in regards to trying to define slavery as being forced to work without wages. You can always make the argument that you can choose not to, but the consequences are more direct, physical harm, starvation, death. Whereas with a wage slave, these things may happen, but it would take longer, or they wouldn't be directly punished. So I'm a little unclear as to why the attempt was made to argue that they were drastically different. Unless someone is quite literally in your brain making decisions and controlling your body without your consent, ultimately you're the one making the decisions, and just because your one "better" choice is awful doesn't make it not a choice.

Thanks for the perspective!

That is the problem with free will, if the only choice offered is between Bad and Worse, it is easy to see how the choice of Bad, can be viewed philosophically, as determined (predetermined). For example, when we vote, too often it is against 'the lesser of two evils', as we perceive evil in politics.

I think a definition of oppression/depression has been provided by Darby, 'when the only option, perceivable, is worse than the status quo.'

I can think of any number of mental/social disorders that can be discussed/explained using this paradigm.

I think, that throughout history, the challenge has been to 'find a third option, better option': the silver lining in the dark cloud of oppression, the good that ill-winds leave behind, Optimism in the form of hope in a system fueled by pain and fear.

For many Christianity has been that third option, for others it has been the accumulation of power and money. It seems as if the challenge for many in the modern world is to identify their own individual 'third options', realizing of course, that politically-correct, popular third options are often just traps set and baited by propaganda designed by the ruling class.

Philosophyking87 · May 8, 2012

INTPs tend to either respect and go along with society's rules, or to question and rebel against them. Their response to these rules depends on how the rules might affect them. When INTPs do not like the rules, they are quick to find the flaws in the rule makers' thinking, regardless of their status, position in the hierarchy, or renown. As young adults choosing careers, INTPs either set a course and work toward it quietly yet forcefully or continue to resist and rebel against society's expectations and irrational rules.

Considering this thread is concerned with "the rules/system" by which we live, I thought this was interesting. Explains the obsession around here with the limitations of the status quo.

MEDICaustik · May 9, 2012

I am of the mind that the greatest scam of all time has been the scam of post-industrial capitalism.

The western world has been convinced that greed is a wonderful thing. They've been convinced if they work that menial job long enough, deal with that stress long enough, sit in that traffic long enough, put up with their boss long enough, they too will one day be making millions of dollars from the back of a limousine.

Meanwhile, we become the fattest, sickest (mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually) and unhappiest people in the history of humanity.

I get it. We have the option to quit a job if we don't like it. We have the option to change things. But we don't really. Realistically anyone who breaks the mold is immediately cast out. The crux of human life is society. And society demands you follow societal norms, otherwise, you are not normal, and not welcome.

Funny how no individual I have ever talked to says they enjoy working in an office, 9-5 and sitting in 2 hours of traffic everyday. Yet it is accepted and unchallenged.

I find humanity to be the second most fascinating thing in the universe, the first thing being the universe itself.

EditorOne · May 9, 2012

"Does man exist for a functional "efficient" economy, or does a functional "efficient" economy exist for man?"

Instant, pungent aphorism from Kuu. I love this forum.

Philosophyking87 · May 9, 2012

MEDICaustik said:
I am of the mind that the greatest scam of all time has been the scam of post-industrial capitalism.

The western world has been convinced that greed is a wonderful thing. They've been convinced if they work that menial job long enough, deal with that stress long enough, sit in that traffic long enough, put up with their boss long enough, they too will one day be making millions of dollars from the back of a limousine.

Meanwhile, we become the fattest, sickest (mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually) and unhappiest people in the history of humanity.

I get it. We have the option to quit a job if we don't like it. We have the option to change things. But we don't really. Realistically anyone who breaks the mold is immediately cast out. The crux of human life is society. And society demands you follow societal norms, otherwise, you are not normal, and not welcome.

Funny how no individual I have ever talked to says they enjoy working in an office, 9-5 and sitting in 2 hours of traffic everyday. Yet it is accepted and unchallenged.

I find humanity to be the second most fascinating thing in the universe, the first thing being the universe itself.

Beautiful post.

1. I tend to somewhat see capitalism as a large scam, myself (although it clearly has led to a number of social improvements as well). But I'm sure there are some uglier developments in history that are worthy of the "all time" title. But that's a discussion for some other time. haha

2. Yes, people seem to believe -- rather naively -- that hard work will one day pay off, and that they really have a chance of attaining some amount of luxurious success in a capitalist system. But the statistics really don't support that nonsense. Most people will NEVER be a part of the 1%, or anywhere near it. Only highly privileged (either through family or talent) individuals will ever get so far. Yet this belief seems to keep them pacified and coddled long enough to work an entire life for the profits and benefits others largely enjoy... it reminds me of the aristocracy of France! Little people slaving while the heffer sits on the throne eating her cake. Yet they "believe" they are "free."

Keep you doped with religion, sex and T.V.
and you think you're so clever and classless and free
but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see - John Lennon

3. And yes, due largely to social factors (such as the nature of society, how people act in groups, and how people are raised and affected by their upbringing) we never really escape the fact that we are somewhat driven to believe we have choices in a system in which we really don't. We are always slaves to the norms, slaves to the need to make a social living, slaves to the particular conditions of society, which are largely dictated by the collective effects of many simple people with small minds who see not the effects of their individual, macro decisions, attitudes, and voting habits. Thus, when someone truly wishes to speak out and question the stauts quo from time to time, the rabble barks back angrily and chants on about respecting the almight social norms. The sad thing is, most don't even realize they're doing it. They truly have been so socialized that they literally believe things couldn't possibly change in any positive manner, because they are so damn accustomed to the current way of things. It's rather sad that they make themselves believe in fairy tales and lies about "freedom to choose," when the nasty big picture hangs largely over their heads, out of their sight, laughing at them, as they really are nothing more than cogs in a giant machine.

4. Things are accepted and unchallenged because most humans are inclined to the simple convenience of conventionality. Why think creatively and question things that are working "good enough"? I'd rather just go drink a beer, party with some friends, and do whatever the community leaders tell me is best. Thinking is too hard and life is too short to care about deep philosophical questions concerning justification. "Just live," they say.

5. Great ending. The universe is rather impressive. Humans on the other hand... bear a dynamic general human nature that is often so intriguing to study and analyze holistically, yet humans themselves - on a smaller level, I find, are often incredibly loathsome, irrational, selfish, narrow-minded, and incredibly conceited.

In sum, I Bertrand Russell said it best:

The universe, as science reveals it, is very old and very large. Our planet, long after it separated from the sun, was too hot to support life. After countless ages the chemical combination which we call living matter came into existence, and increasing in amount and complexity of structure by means of ordinary chemical laws. At last, through elaboration of structure, living bodies aquired that peculiar relation of present to past behavior which we call consciousness. These little conscious lumps on a tiny planet then imagined themselves to be the purpose of the whole. They were so pleased with themselves that they thought only Omnipotence could have created them, and only the creation of them could have satisfied Omnipotence. I do not know if this world was or was not created by a Diety, but if it was, I cannot regard Man as a worthy culmination, and I sincerely hope that in some other corner there are beings more intelligent, more merciful, and less conceited.

Philosophyking87 · May 9, 2012

EditorOne said:
"Does man exist for a functional "efficient" economy, or does a functional "efficient" economy exist for man?"

Instant, pungent aphorism from Kuu. I love this forum.

WOW! That one little aphorism essentially captures my entire viewpoint.
Bravo.

MEDICaustik · May 9, 2012

Philosophyking87 said:
The things you wrote

I'm not going to waste scrolling space quoting your whole bit.

1. Bertrand Russell. Nuff said.

2. My mother and sister often argue with me about the whole 1% thing, and how if everyone worked their butts off, they have just as good a chance of being rich as anyone else.

I then drop the bomb on them that only 1% of the population can be the top 1%. There HAS to be a bottom 10%, a bottom 20%. You can't make 1.1% of the population, the top 1%.

The point is, in capitalism, somebody is always going to get screwed, because somebody is always going to be the top of the totem pole (contrary to popular saying, the lowest totem on the totem pole is the one which commands the most respect).

3. Human beings are still primitive in more ways than we care to admit. We handle change better than most creatures, but we still dislike it at the core. We can watch videos of basejumpers on youtube from the comfort of home and tell ourselves "Oh I would love to do that!", but there's a reason most of us don't.

We like comfort. A ripple in the herd affects the whole herd, and before we know it, the whole herd is panicked. So we avoid ripples.

Wage Slavery

It Thinks For Itself

Deleted member 1424

Guest

cackling in the trenches

kickin' at a tin can

cackling in the trenches

Eye In Tee-Pee

cackling in the trenches

Prolific Member

Banned

It Thinks For Itself

It Thinks For Itself

Prolific Member

Banned

Here to bring back the love!

It Thinks For Itself

Here to bring back the love!

It Thinks For Itself

Here to bring back the love!

>>Loading

blurb blurb

Active Member

Active Member

Here to bring back the love!

Here to bring back the love!

Active Member

Here to bring back the love!

It Thinks For Itself

Active Member

It Thinks For Itself

Banned

New(ish)

kickin' at a tin can

>>Loading

Here to bring back the love!

Prolific Member

Here to bring back the love!

Active Member

It Thinks For Itself

Well-Known Member

New(ish)

Eye In Tee-Pee

Active Member

It Thinks For Itself

Banned

It Thinks For Itself

Member

Prolific Member

It Thinks For Itself

It Thinks For Itself

Member