

Wage Slavery - Applicable to [Nearly] Everybody? - singular
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

======
hugh3
This term should be offensive to actual slaves. What do you think a _real_
slave would say if he saw a free worker (who could at any moment quit, go to
another employer, start a business, move to another country, go on holiday,
join the army, become a priest, or just sit there slacking off safe in the
knowledge that the worst thing that can happen is getting fired) complaining
that he was a slave too?

~~~
silkodyssey
I think you make a useful point. At a high level of abstraction "real slavery"
and "wage slavery" seem very similar but for the people who were / are really
affected it's a world of difference. It puts things in perspective.

~~~
hugh3
There should be a word for this kind of thing: where you argue something
moderately is bad by labelling it as a form of something universally
acknowledged to be _really_ bad. Terms like "wage slavery", "cultural
genocide" or "raping the natural environment" fall into this category, and
they all annoy me.

Perhaps this abuse of the language should be called "verbal bestiality".

------
swombat
We're nowhere near Wage Slavery. As the Wikipedia article correctly points
out, "Wave slavery" refers to a situation where people are paid so little that
they cannot escape from their situation.

Certainly most of us on HN have the ability to work jobs where we earn enough
to save money - whether we have the discipline to do so is, of course a
different matter. Wage slaves were commonly paid wages such that there was
absolutely no way for them to leave their job even for a few hours to try and
do something else.

Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically
impossible.

~~~
run4yourlives
_Today's economic systems, in the west, make wage slavery practically
impossible._

That's a little misguided. For the uneducated, the mentally or physically
disabled, or the financially burdened "wage slavery" can easily become the
reality.

It takes being at a certain level in society to realize that you can create
value in a way that is both competitive and creates a stronger bargaining
position. It takes a level of understanding and confidence to do this that
many people lack.

~~~
swombat
Ok, fair enough, that might have been an overly strong statement - but I
maintain that it is true for the vast majority of the people on HN.

~~~
run4yourlives
I'd agree with that, certainly.

------
datapimp
I think the important point isn't to compare our situations currently to 'Wage
Slavery' but to acknowledge the history.

As a people, we have descended from serfs, slaves, and wage slaves. Wage
slavery was a competing strategy for emerging industrialists, and a much more
efficient one since they did not have to feed and house their wage slaves the
way Chattel slave owners had to. ( Indeed, this was the argument the Southern
slave owners used in favor of Slavery in the south. At least they took care of
their property. The northern industrialists did not.)

So, we have descended from wage slaves. And the only reason we are much better
off is because of the sacrifices made by other wage slaves who organized to
fight for better working conditions.

Things like, you know.. the weekend, the 8 hour day, holidays.

------
houseabsolute
What a disaster, that people should have to produce to consume.

~~~
d4rt
It's questioning the idea of work for wages, not the idea of producing in
order to consume. An alternative system could be co-operatives or contract
working, for example.

~~~
jerf
In which either "work" is being done for "wages", or "no work" is being done
for "wages".

There really isn't a way out of it. The first is isomorphic to what we have,
the second utterly fails as an economic system.

The third alternative is to break wages, but as money is already essentially
as powerful as it can be, all you can do is break its power down, and _that's_
just "company scrip" again, which most people consider not so much a good
thing.

TANSTAAFL.

Contract working isn't an out, either. Either we have the opportunity to do
contracts already and some of us choose to work for wages, in which case we
are not wage slaves because we have chosen it and you lose the right to
complain about how we are wage slaves, or contract workers are themselves just
disguised wage slaves. Either way, contracts can not be a solution to a
problem we currently have; either we do not have the problem, or contracts are
not the solution.

------
singular
Woah a lot of strong reaction to this, which is perhaps not unsurprising.

I certainly think it is extreme language and I certainly didn't mean to imply
that, as well-paid professionals, the majority of people on HN would be in a
situation comparable to those truly in terrible situations: both overt slavery
and what really amounts to actual slavery. I see it as purposely strong
language used for emphasis.

I'm thinking more of the relationship between the employer and employee;
ultimately you rent your time in exchange for money, which arguably for the
majority of people is just enough to live their lives with some greater or
lesser luxury, but ultimately doing unpleasant work which, though of course to
some degree is necessary and serves society, is largely in place to make rich
owners richer. A large mass of population simply acts within a confined system
as 'slave wages' servicing the needs of the rich while only subsiding at a
certain living standard.

I am contrasting this with those of us (and ultimately this probably applies
to far fewer HN'ers than the general public) who find a way out, i.e. find
value in our work beyond that of its means to provide us with an income, or in
fact become one of the rich ourselves.

This is not a criticism of capitalism either, especially since I personally
believe capitalism is the best means of distributing wealth, assuming controls
are in place to prevent abuses.

------
josh33
Wage Slavery is a state of mind. You don't work for money. You work to get
things you need, and possibly, if you create more value than you consume in
getting those needs, you also consume some wants. Wages/money are just a
lubricant that makes consuming easier. The real focus shouldn't be the wage,
but the work being done. Is it creating value? If so, the world will pay you
what you're worth, especially in the long run.

------
dhume
_a wage laborer can choose an employer, but he cannot choose not to have one_

This here is the underlying problem. The free, competitive market does not
have barriers to exit.

~~~
hugh3
Anyone can start a business at any time. I'm not talking about an internet
startup, I'm talking about a lawn-mowing business.

~~~
datapimp
Not everyone can start a business though. A business has to have employees.

~~~
hugh3
Huh? A one-man business is a business in my book. In any case if you start one
you're no longer working for "wages".

~~~
argv_empty
And the one man goes right back to needing someone to pay for his lawnmowing.

~~~
hugh3
Huh? I quit my job. I buy a lawnmower (let us assume I planned that far ahead
to save up enough money to buy a lawnmower). I knock on doors and say "Hey,
I'll mow your lawn for ten dollars". I mow the damn lawns myself. I have a
business. What's the problem here?

~~~
argv_empty
The "problem" is that you still need an employer. Calling yourself a business
rather than an individual has not changed your situation. All you've done is
exercise your capability to seek out other employers.

------
looprecur
We're not there yet, but our economy has been headed in that direction for the
past 30 years. Michael Lind has termed it "Brazilianization", in reference to
the inequality and corruption one sees in much of Latin America due to the
lack of a concern for social justice in the governing class.

Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an
economy where people have to work to survive, which depresses wages, which can
very easily (and reliably) bring about a vicious cycle. The end state of this
is one where the lucky among the proletariat become servants (paid a pittance,
but in a nice house and well-fed, enabling a very nice life in comparison to
the alternative) while the unlucky and poorly-connected (who cannot even find
employment as domestic servants) starve. This would be very damaging to
minorities and Latinos, because the upper classes would demand (and be able to
get, due to the collapsed economy) white, formerly middle-class, maids and
nannies.

Minimum wage and welfare programs aren't good just for their direct
beneficiaries, but for a lot of people, because they raise the bar across the
board. If minimum wage is $8/hour, then skilled workers will expect $15 and
entry-level white-collar will expect $20. Increase that to $10, and skilled
workers are now asking for $18, and white collar is asking for $25. Although
this causes "inflation", it's the good kind because it represents a wealth
transfer away from legacy and in favor of labor.

On the other hand, if there is no minimum wage (which is similar to a basic
income but contingent on working) then the reference point collapses and
everyone gets poorer.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Capitalist economies with no welfare state (laissez faire) converge to an
economy where people have to work to survive_

How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could
lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers
for us?

 _it's the good kind because it represents a wealth transfer away from legacy
and in favor of labor_

First, why is taking away the fruits of one's labors to give it to another,
less productive person, good?

Second, you're wrong. minimum wages _cause_ unemployment in the very lowest
ranks. Thus, minimum wage laws are a transfer of money from the very poorest
people to the next rank above them.

~~~
Avshalom
>>How horrible. If only we could get rid of that pesky market, everyone could
lie about eating lotus flowers. Wait -- who is going to grow the lotus flowers
for us?

Umm.. the exact same people that grew them under communism, mercantilism,
feudalism and non laissez faire capitalism. "The market" is a way to allocate
'capital': money, labor, and general stuff. It's not the only possible way.
Further, an attack on laissez faire capitalism is not the same thing as an
calling for the abolition of capitalism as a whole.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_the exact same people that grew them under_

My point was that _somebody_ MUST work if we all want to eat. There is no
solution to the problem that does not force people to work for their survival.

~~~
looprecur
Surprising fact: most people like working. Many people hate being told what to
do and when to do it, but people have a fundamental desire to work.

Here's how to do basic income. Starting with 2010 GDP as a base, 50% of all
GDP after that goes into a basic income fund that's distributed to everyone.
It starts out small and eventually grows to a point where no one has less than
a 1/2*N share. For example, let's say GDP/capita is $40000 in 2010. If it
rises 2% to $40800, then $400 goes into the basic income fund.

If the result of the basic income is that people become lazy and don't work,
the basic income falls or is phased out and we call the experiment a failure.

