Ask a Red III

[GhostWriter16]

Gramsci is fantastic and almost as rewarding to read as Marx, both on the practical knowledge level as well as the sheer amount of culture you get from their constant references and such.



Okay, so the income for a company comes from two places: investment, and sales. Workers are generally not paid for investments, because they don't have anything to do with them. So let's just say they get paid a percentage of the sales from the products they make. It should be an obvious fact that the sales after payment of expenses, which does not include labor cost (payrolls should not be included in calculations determining what profit is), are split by the capitalist between himself and his workforce. Since a product has two sources of price, which are production cost (value) and speculative "profit" cost, we can determine that the labor involved is a defining factor in a commodity's price, and thus in the profit it yields.

Now, if this were socialism, then the worker would be paid in full for his share of production, after the sales income from their products is processed. So if there were 20 workers and 20 commodities were sold which, after production costs were factored in, yielded $10 profit each, then each person would receive $10. However, with the capitalist added to the equation, perhaps each worker only get $2 in this situation, and the capitalist keeps the extraneous $160. Thus it can effectively be said that the worker pays the capitalist for part of the right to produce something on his machine, and receive a pittance in return. We can also gather that he does not receive his full compensation for his part of the production process.

Thus, the working day can effectively be divided into two parts: one part, where the worker produces the amount of product equivalent to the pay he receives for doing so, and another part, where he works to pay the capitalist (because the capitalist keeps a certain amount of the income from selling said products). While the ratio between the two will vary between time, place, and profession, a 1:1 ratio doesn't seem entirely outlandish; in fact, it may be a bit generous.

I can see your point if you don't respect the property rights of the Capitalist to own his machine (Which I don't really understand WHY yet, but I'm getting there)

That stated, what percentage of the population do you actually feel would be financially better of in socialism or communism than in Capitalism? Obviously the richest of the rich will benefit under capitalism more and the poorest of the poor benefit a lot more under socialism, but at what point do they become equal?

Also, would you agree that someone who does more difficult work (Either because it requires more physical effort, skill, or education) should be paid more than someone who does an easier job? And how would that work in a socialist system?

 

[Traitorfish]

There have been a few threads wither directly about or have turned into , discussions about private property . In one of them a hypothitcal was posed about finding a guy on the street who had had a heart attack and whether it was appropriate to just barge into someones house and bring the guy in to call an ambulance etc .

Responses tended towards the "exceptions to private property laws apply and the greater good takes precedence"

This got me to thinking how one of the most common criticisms of communism is how it relies on people being decent , sharing , willing to work for the common good etc , and that this belies human nature . Human nature being that people are inherently selfish and capitalism works better given this tendency .

But the example above illustrated to me that in a capitalist society , peoples unwillingness to share , be decent etc is also a major drawback . Unrestricted capitalism has a significantly negative impact on society due to peoples failings .

tl dr I know . But I was wondering your thoughts and why it seems this standard of unreality tends only to be applied to communism when it seems reasonably clear to me that capitalism also has failings on account of human nature .

The simple- if cynical- answer is that the "human nature" argument generally isn't an argument, but a thought-terminating cliché whuch functions to preclude any serious consideration of the social content of communism, capitalism, or any pre-capitalist society. What they're saying isn't "I don't think that communism is compatible with the transhistorical human essence (because btw I'm an Idealist for the duration of this sentence)" but "I can't imagine living in any society other than capitalism". If there was any real interest in diving the character of "human nature" and establishing what forms of society is compatible with it, they wouldn't be making that comment.

Bah, I am in school 35 hours a week, and its only because I'm a good time manager that I normally don't also have work to take home... I don't think 40 hours is THAT bad. Once you get well above that, I can see the complaint maybe, but not 40 hours...

You're aware that hunter-gatherer societies work like 16, maybe 20 hours a week, tops? If you're happy to spend twice as much of your life working as somebody with only the barest sort of labour-saving technology, then I can't help but say that you're a bit of a sucker.

 

[brennan]

Precisely. Anarchists have been complaining for over a century that despite endless innovation in 'labour saving' technology, there has been little or no reduction in labour.

 

[Hygro]

Wait a sec... does anyone actually work 110 hours a week? I was reading about steel workers in the Gilded Age, and they worked 84... I wouldn't even wish that on anyone

That said, I do understand your point. That said, wouldn't less work overall = less production of consumer goods?

By the gilded age things were already a lot better. In industrializing Europe, for example, it was not uncommon to keep kids living in a factory, working 364 days a year, 14 hour days. The idea that they aught to be horsewhipped, not to punish them, but to squeeze some extra productivity out of them, was accepted in many parts. 110 hours was not a long era in human history, but it did exist before the labor movement got going.

Less work overall could mean less production of consumer goods. Too much consumption of human goods without the demand (high wages, and time to actually want those things*) is useless too. Housing bubble, tech bubble, corporation ownership bubble (aka 1920s stock bubble) etc. Additionally, the fact is, we have unbelievable productive power right now but we don't even put it to use because to do so would be unprofitable and would disrupt the way we humans organize ourselves.

Basically there would be less productive capability, but given the constraints of our economic system, there would possibly be more production.

Note that this mostly only applies to high income economies, because lower income "behind" economies do better producing more and investing in straight up production. And we help them by having more demand-oriented economies too. Win-win, free trade for all, right?



*I have little demand for video games, but not because of a lack of interest. Other interests and necessities take priority. I have lots of interest in music production gear but little money. Etc

 

[GhostWriter16]

By the gilded age things were already a lot better. In industrializing Europe, for example, it was not uncommon to keep kids living in a factory, working 364 days a year, 14 hour days. The idea that they aught to be horsewhipped, not to punish them, but to squeeze some extra productivity out of them, was accepted in many parts. 110 hours was not a long era in human history, but it did exist before the labor movement got going.

Since you said 364... what day did they actually get off?

Actually, 14 x 7 is actually only (I cringe when I write "Only" here) a 96 hour workweek, NOT 110. So it would have had to have been 16 hours a day, five days a week, and 17 hours the other two (On average.) How on earth can one survive that? Its like three full time jobs...

Less work overall could mean less production of consumer goods. Too much consumption of human goods without the demand (high wages, and time to actually want those things*) is useless too. Housing bubble, tech bubble, corporation ownership bubble (aka 1920s stock bubble) etc. Additionally, the fact is, we have unbelievable productive power right now but we don't even put it to use because to do so would be unprofitable and would disrupt the way we humans organize ourselves.

Basically there would be less productive capability, but given the constraints of our economic system, there would possibly be more production.

Note that this mostly only applies to high income economies, because lower income "behind" economies do better producing more and investing in straight up production. And we help them by having more demand-oriented economies too. Win-win, free trade for all, right?

Less work overall could mean less production of consumer goods. Too much consumption of human goods without the demand (high wages, and time to actually want those things*) is useless too. Housing bubble, tech bubble, corporation ownership bubble (aka 1920s stock bubble) etc. Additionally, the fact is, we have unbelievable productive power right now but we don't even put it to use because to do so would be unprofitable and would disrupt the way we humans organize ourselves.

Basically there would be less productive capability, but given the constraints of our economic system, there would possibly be more production.

Note that this mostly only applies to high income economies, because lower income "behind" economies do better producing more and investing in straight up production. And we help them by having more demand-oriented economies too. Win-win, free trade for all, right?

Fair enough, but how many hours a week do you think it should be?

 

[Hygro]

you're right, but some people were pulling 18 hour days too. It's.... doable. I mean, 18 hour days wasn't exactly a sustainable business model unless you had very specific conditions (England had such conditions--they privatized all the land in a way that ended yeoman agriculture forcing them to find a living in cities before a fully developed economy could accommodate them all in their capitalist system), but 14 hour days work is completely doable. And evidence points to that it was politics clamping down on industrial capitalism that ended this.

There's a very interesting phenomenon that the British sent treasure and troops to turn India into a giant caffeine plantation the same time that their laborers back home were working extreme hours. You basically kick your farmers off their land with new property rules, they move to cities with no industrial skills or tools. There's no real welfare so you have to work to eat. You find work in a textile factory or something similar. They tell you it's a 14 hour workday for a subsistence or below subsistence wage (people will find ways to survive, barely). You don't really have a choice, so all your time is spent working, eating, and sleeping. Any leftover time is spent doing what you have to to have a break, which basically meant having sex.

There's no time or energy left to be an informed citizen, or find a better job, or get the training/education to better your position, or start your own business.

This is why communist revolution had such massive appeal in the 1800s. The free market/capitalist system basically enslaved members of society. To opt out was to starve. Leftist movements and centrist-progressive movements combined put an end to the problem. Progressivism, for example, is the idea of making capitalism serve us rather than us serving capitalism, using the tools of government.

Personally I think the American workweek should be phased down to 20 hours over a couple decades. Drop by an hour a year Not to stop people from working more if they want--but it should only be from more "free" jobs like professionals or entrepreneurs who own their labor and have clients rather than bosses/employers. Eh, there's some can of worms stuff but I won't get into that for now.

I think the ideal system is one in which everyone contributes, but people can choose whether they want to be free to live normal human lives like our ancestors did, only with the wealth of today, or trade leisure for something else like money or whatever. But right now the people hoping to be free and normal humans have to also act ambitiously at the expense of their freedom, which is a contradiction and not very healthy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're aware that hunter-gatherer societies work like 16, maybe 20 hours a week, tops? If you're happy to spend twice as much of your life working as somebody with only the barest sort of labour-saving technology, then I can't help but say that you're a bit of a sucker.

Why the heck do students have to work so much then? Is this something you also propose changing?

you're right, but some people were pulling 18 hour days too. It's.... doable. I mean, 18 hour days wasn't exactly a sustainable business model unless you had very specific conditions (England had such conditions--they privatized all the land in a way that ended yeoman agriculture forcing them to find a living in cities before a fully developed economy could accommodate them all in their capitalist system), but 14 hour days work is completely doable. And evidence points to that it was politics clamping down on industrial capitalism that ended this.

Working 18 hours on a given day because for some reason you have something urgent to do is probably doable. But working 18 hours all the time isn't really, I don't think. You'd only have five hours to sleep and one to eat. Every day? I think a lot of people would probably faint

14 can probably be done, but would suck, and again, would only add up to 96. I can't even imagine working without a full day off a week, at least.

Personally I think the American workweek should be phased down to 20 hours over a couple decades. Drop by an hour a year Not to stop people from working more if they want--but it should only be from more "free" jobs like professionals or entrepreneurs who own their labor and have clients rather than bosses/employers. Eh, there's some can of worms stuff but I won't get into that for now.

I'll admit I don't really understand the economics that go into it, but I really don't see a problem with a 40 hour workweek at all. Its 8 hours a day, which leaves an average person (Who needs 8 hours of sleep) with still basically 8 hours to do their own thing. Plus you get two complete days free. I don't intristically feel like that's too much.

Granted, I can definitely see vacation time being increased by at least a week or two from what it is...

 

[Traitorfish]

Why the heck do students have to work so much then? Is this something you also propose changing?

Mebbe. Can't say I have any ready answers, because education theory is a subject on which I can quite honestly claim total ignorance. Only thing that leaps to mind is spreading the academic calendar thinner, but that no doubt has its own host of complications which I am missing quite completely.

 

[Hygro]

8, 8, and 8, Ghostwriter! The rally call of the labour movement of the 19th century. 8 hours of work, rest, and leisure. People died to make that happen. It's reasonable. It's not wage slavery at all, provided everyone gets to participate. But a lot of the 8 hours of leisure is spent resting from the 8 hours of work, or working with other things like child rearing, chores, etc. If we could bump that up, we could increase the amount of time people had to invent things and start businesses, to care for people beyond our families, to exercise for good health, to educate ourselves and be better citizens. These ripple effects would make the world better and better.

Now granted, a lot of it might be spent playing computer games, watching TV and so forth but let's give people more opportunity and freedom to be able to do that kind of stuff. I think it might even make our markets more efficient as people would better have the time to think independently and therefore contribute more to the common wisdom.

8 hour workdays are not bad at all, but we could do even better.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

8 hour workdays are not bad at all, but we could do even better.

They're certainly not universal, even today. Many salaried people are expected to work much longer, because they often don't get overtime. In the food service industry, for example, it's customary and expected that even assistant managers work around 50 hours a week, if not more. Now granted, the often make twice the salary of the people they're in charge of, but if they were paid a wage and overtime was factored in, then they wouldn't be making that much more, despite being hand-picked and vetted and holding much more responsibility. I suppose they're given the privilege to go into overtime, since allowing workers to get 1.5x pay today is considered "bad labor management."

 

[GhostWriter16]

8, 8, and 8, Ghostwriter! The rally call of the labour movement of the 19th century. 8 hours of work, rest, and leisure. People died to make that happen. It's reasonable. It's not wage slavery at all, provided everyone gets to participate. But a lot of the 8 hours of leisure is spent resting from the 8 hours of work, or working with other things like child rearing, chores, etc. If we could bump that up, we could increase the amount of time people had to invent things and start businesses, to care for people beyond our families, to exercise for good health, to educate ourselves and be better citizens. These ripple effects would make the world better and better.

Now granted, a lot of it might be spent playing computer games, watching TV and so forth but let's give people more opportunity and freedom to be able to do that kind of stuff. I think it might even make our markets more efficient as people would better have the time to think independently and therefore contribute more to the common wisdom.

8 hour workdays are not bad at all, but we could do even better.

Ugh, I remember the Gilded Age period, without the curve I got half of the questions on it wrong in AP US That said, that was one thing that I remember.

Keep in mind that in ADDITION to those 8 hours off that you aren't sleeping, you get two complete days (16 hours + sleep) off, and 2 full weeks a year off (Definitely think we can do a tad better in that regard...) that said, the above isn't really my point. I think the difference between a 40 hour workweek and a 60 hour one is like the difference between night and day. And keep in mind how many people still do the latter.

I'm just questioning, again, from a position of ignorance, how well society could actually sustain itself with a 20 hour work week. If it can be done without averse effects, I obviously don't have an issue with it. I can't see myself supporting "Time and a half" at just 20 hours though, 40 seems much more reasonable in that regard.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Keep in mind that in ADDITION to those 8 hours off that you aren't sleeping, you get two complete days (16 hours + sleep) off,

Not guaranteed. I worked a six day week this week, for example. Where it exists, it's by custom and not by law.

and 2 full weeks a year off (Definitely think we can do a tad better in that regard...)

I don't know where that number comes from. I get zero guaranteed days off a year. That's the way it is with most people.

It's only management that gets the privilege of time off, whether its paid or not.

I'm just questioning, again, from a position of ignorance, how well society could actually sustain itself with a 20 hour work week. If it can be done without averse effects, I obviously don't have an issue with it. I can't see myself supporting "Time and a half" at just 20 hours though, 40 seems much more reasonable in that regard.

Try and think about what I said, about how much time goes into producing purely for the capitalist's good and not oneself.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Mebbe. Can't say I have any ready answers, because education theory is a subject on which I can quite honestly claim total ignorance. Only thing that leaps to mind is spreading the academic calendar thinner, but that no doubt has its own host of complications which I am missing quite completely.

Additionally, it's very dubious to claim a direct comparison between class time and work especially at the level of public education, especially since education would be one of those things humans should be able to do with their 20 hour a day work week. I'd certainly trade the labor of a four hour work shift for the ease of 8 hours in a classroom for the same pay.
Public education is 8 hours a day primarily as a form of government day care, not because 8 hours a day is precisely the amount of time children need for their education. Even in primitive societies, education is something that happens to children all day.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not guaranteed. I worked a six day week this week, for example. Where it exists, it's by custom and not by law.

What's your job by curiosities sake? I'm pretty sure most jobs are five days a week, five and a half tops.''

I don't know where that number comes from. I get zero guaranteed days off a year. That's the way it is with most people.

It's only management that gets the privilege of time off, whether its paid or not.

I thought two weeks paid vacation was fairly universal in the US? (I doubt its legally mandated of course...)

Try and think about what I said, about how much time goes into producing purely for the capitalist's good and not oneself.

That assumes that the money simply sits there, rather than being used to make more jobs and whatnot (Note: I don't actually know anything about this fact...)

 

[Traitorfish]

That assumes that the money simply sits there, rather than being used to make more jobs and whatnot (Note: I don't actually know anything about this fact...)

Not at all, it's simply that money is moved in such a fashion as to satisfy the needs of the capitalist rather than the worker- the needs of the latter being satisfied incidentally, as a means to the end of satisfying those of the capitalist.

Take, for example, the advertising industry. What earthly good is that to anyone but the capitalist? All it does is funnel customers towards commodities, and very inefficiently at that, and then charges them for the privilege. And yet over 2% of the American GDP goes to advertising! Wipe that off the map, and you can (generalising hugely) send everybody home at four on a Friday. Continue that process with the swollen bureaucracy, with the superfluous industries (FIRE, etc.), with the military, and without even engaging in any drastic restructuring of the workplace or introducing any new technology, you're already hacked hours off the work-week. Twenty hours, I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest, could be achieved without even leaving capitalism, but simply substituting the current form for what you might call a "humanitarian capitalism".

(Of course, the question is whether humanitarianism and capitalism are in practice compatible, and we would tend to say "no".)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Alright, fair enough. I don't necessarily think advertising is necessarily useless though. People are still buying more because of it, and the people DOING IT are getting paid to it.

I do think overtime laws should be a bit more comprehensive though. That anyone can work sixty hours a week without anything extra to show for it is a bit ridiculous. It would have to be case by case though. If you purposely entered a job that has higher pay but higher expectations, its kinda expected you'll work more.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What's your job by curiosities sake? I'm pretty sure most jobs are five days a week, five and a half tops.''



I thought two weeks paid vacation was fairly universal in the US? (I doubt its legally mandated of course...)

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's very obvious that you are only acquainted with the prevailing status of middle to upper-middle class America. "Most," meaning the majority, of jobs in our country come with neither provision that you have mentioned.

The 40 hour work week law means that over that, hourly employees get 1.5x pay. It doesn't cover salaried ones. It's not a limit to only be allowed to be made to work 40 hours in a week. Only if...

That assumes that the money simply sits there, rather than being used to make more jobs and whatnot (Note: I don't actually know anything about this fact...)

What he does with it is irrelevant. Workers who are paid more money also recycle that money into their local economies because they have increased buying power. It's not as if it's magically useful because a rich person has it, and wasted because a poor person has it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's very obvious that you are only acquainted with the prevailing status of middle to upper-middle class America. "Most," meaning the majority, of jobs in our country come with neither provision that you have mentioned.

No offense taken. So, I'm willing to learn. What is the average workweek for a lower middle class person? (I'm pretty sure we're lower middle class too) and how does college education play into it?

The 40 hour work week law means that over that, hourly employees get 1.5x pay. It doesn't cover salaried ones. It's not a limit to only be allowed to be made to work 40 hours in a week. Only if...

I'm aware of the fact. I think in the case of a "Salaried worker" how much they are being paid and how much work is normally expected should be made clear. Obviously it depends, the more money they're making, the less I actually feel bad that they have to work a little too much.

That said, overtime is usually optional, right?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No offense taken. So, I'm willing to learn. What is the average workweek for a lower middle class person? (I'm pretty sure we're lower middle class too) and how does college education play into it?

It depends on the industry. I don't know about, for example, retail, I do food service. You asked earlier what my vocation was: I'm a shift leader in a restaurant. Trying to get promoted, bearing the responsibility of a manager without the pay and benefits. It's a sad trend in this industry that they lean increasingly upon people who are willing to do such things almost as sycophancy to the corporate management to show they "really want it" and hopefully get promoted. What they're really getting is hard-working managers for half the pay and none of the complaints, who burn out after a few years (just when they're really beginning to care) and are replaced by a new energetic crowd destined to repeat the process.

Anyway, the average working class person probably works around 25 hours a week per job. Nearly all would work more hours at a single job, but management won't schedule them for that. It's best to have a large, mediocrely-houred staff that you can manipulate and which isn't too invested in their job (if they cared they might start asking for things like raises, and start wanting an increased share and say in things), instead of a small but dedicated and fully-houred staff. Management will work upwards of 40 hours, probably closer to 50.

I'm aware of the fact. I think in the case of a "Salaried worker" how much they are being paid and how much work is normally expected should be made clear. Obviously it depends, the more money they're making, the less I actually feel bad that they have to work a little too much.

Well yes it's made clear, but such deals are always at a "take it or leave it" level. Besides, the whole "pay people more, but work them more also" goes counter to the whole capitalist model of paying people more for having more responsibility/power. If I make twice more than my co-workers, but work 10 hours overtime, it's not too much different than being paid by the hour and getting 10 hours overtime (which would be like working 55 hours at normal pay). So you have a situation of people not really making much more money, but bearing increased responsibility nonetheless. And they tell us socialism would go against natural human tendency...

Also, I think you seriously underestimate the physical and psychological toll that working 50 hours a week takes on someone. Hell, 40 hours can be really tough, depending on the industry you're in. It's in no way comparable to sitting in a classroom for that amount of time.

That said, overtime is usually optional, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by optional. You mean, someone can opt out of being paid 1.5x wage after 40 hours? I suppose, but why on earth would someone do that?

 

[Traitorfish]

Alright, fair enough. I don't necessarily think advertising is necessarily useless though. People are still buying more because of it...

You're going to have to explain to me, A) why this is the case, and B) why it would be a good thing if it was.

...and the people DOING IT are getting paid to it.

That's my point: we're giving them money, i.e. labour-time to do something that we don't really need, simply because capital has determined what we should. Why can't we invest that labour-time in something that we actually want?