Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

Doesn't the employer buy the person's time from the person himself?

And if they've got my time, haven't they got the best of me?

If you work for an agency, then they literally sell your time onto a third party.

To me, this looks more and more like a commodity.
 
Again, this all sounds very figurative. It's a nice metaphor, nothing more. If the concept of "labour" is a legal fiction, then "buying someone's time" is a rhetorical one.

I really just thought I was buying a newspaper.
 
Again, this all sounds very figurative. It's a nice metaphor, nothing more. If the concept of "labour" is a legal fiction, then "buying someone's time" is a rhetorical one.

I really just thought I was buying a newspaper.

You are just buying a newspaper. Whoever produced that newspaper made it out of time, almost all of which was time purchased from other people.
 
Again, "made it out of time" is purely figurative, like how my mum's curries are made with love.

They made it out of paper and ink.
 
Well, you were. But how did you come by the money to buy it?
I made spreadsheets for my boss. I got my pickaxe out, went to the time mine, started hacking away at a rich time vein, put the time in my wagon, then used it to make a spreadsheet.

Alternatively, I typed some stuff into a spreadsheet and emailed it to him.
 
Again, "made it out of time" is purely figurative, like how my mum's curries are made with love.

They made it out of paper and ink.

It isn't figurative at all, because the 'they' that made it aren't figurative. The paper and ink didn't order themselves into a newspaper. Some large group of people put in the time to make it happen. A newspaper contains very little paper and ink as compared to the time it contains. There are many products that contain no physical substance at all, and consist purely of time.
 
I made spreadsheets for my boss. I got my pickaxe out, went to the time mine, started hacking away at a rich time vein, put the time in my wagon, then used it to make a spreadsheet.

Alternatively, I typed some stuff into a spreadsheet and emailed it to him.

Dude, you are the time mine.
 
It isn't figurative at all, because the 'they' that made it aren't figurative. The paper and ink didn't order themselves into a newspaper. Some large group of people put in the time to make it happen. A newspaper contains very little paper and ink as compared to the time it contains. There are many products that contain no physical substance at all, and consist purely of time.
Everything you've said here is figurative. You don't "put in the time". That is literally a figure of speech. A newspaper literally contains no time. That is figurative. There are literally no products that consist purely or even partially of time, because time isn't an actual real substance you can put into something. What the hell.

Dude, you are the time mine.
...

You're seriously telling me this isn't figurative.
 
I don't understand, Mr Mise. Would you say that human labour is merely figurative too, then?

I don't know; it could be that time is the only thing that really does exist.
 
I don't understand, Mr Mise. Would you say that human labour is merely figurative too, then?

I don't know; it could be that time is the only thing that really does exist.
I already said it was a legal fiction!
 
Oh, right (I'm losing track tbh). A bit like money then? So one legal fiction is used to purchase another?

I'd agree that just about everything can be thought of as fiction. I'm not so sure it really gets us anywhere.
 
Well, the labour is real.

I'm not sure what the value of this argument is. We all have human capital that was created by prior investment. We then rent out this capital for other people's use, so that they can create consumer surplus for themselves.
 
@Borachio: Sure. "Purchasing" is a legal fiction, too. It's the thing we use to describe what happens when one person exchanges something with another person for something else.
 
I'm not sure what the value of this argument is. We all have human capital that was created by prior investment. We then rent out this capital for other people's use, so that they can create consumer surplus for themselves.
Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? And isn't that exactly why it can be described as exploitative?
 
Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? And isn't that exactly why it can be described as exploitative?
Only if you take a figurative thing and think that it's a real thing. I.e. if you talk figuratively about employers "buying" employees, and then compare it to the slave traders literally actually buying and selling real life human beings for money.
 
That's not the exploitative part. That's synergy. The exploitation happens because the ownership of the means of production migrates up the wealth ladder, and then the owners of those means of production rent them to the workers.
 
Everything you've said here is figurative. You don't "put in the time". That is literally a figure of speech. A newspaper literally contains no time. That is figurative. There are literally no products that consist purely or even partially of time, because time isn't an actual real substance you can put into something. What the hell.

If the newspaper contains no time, why are you not just buying a small stack of newsprint and a container of ink for your fifty cents instead?

I just helped my girlfriend hire a tree service. What are they selling? The trees are already here. The equipment they bring with them they will take away at the end of the day. Their product contains no material at all, so what is it?
 
Top Bottom