I have to admit I don't see the practical distinction.
Yeah, they are expecting that you'll use your time, social skills and adaptability to fulfil whatever other duties might be required for this particular job as handyman or admin assistant. In exchange for that, you get some money. I don't see how this involves person A buying or renting person B.When you've worked jobs that have a line in the description that reads: "Other duties as required," for example every admin assistant and most handymen: really, they're buying your time, social skills, and adaptability.
I've never argued against that, in fact I think this is probably desirable, especially in professions that are not particularly nice to work in. If this is a statement in support of another point, rather than a point on it's own, I don't see how it's connected. If that's the case then could you elaborate?If the task is simple and repetitive enough, there is now or soon will be, a machine/robot for that.
Yeah, they are expecting that you'll use your time, social skills and adaptability to fulfil whatever other duties might be required for this particular job as handyman or admin assistant. In exchange for that, you get some money. I don't see how this involves person A buying or renting person B.
Because you're not renting a person in toto, you're renting a person to do a specific job, as defined in their terms and conditions, job description and so on. It's the job you're buying, not the person; the person is a means to completing the job. The specific job is the functional aspect of, well, a job. Person A says "I need these shelves stacked", person B says "yeah I'll do that if you pay me X", person A says "sure". No part of that involves exchanging actual human beings... At no point does person B get sold or rented to person A. I mean, in a renting situation, who exactly is the owner that the employer is renting from? If I rent a house, I rent from the person who owns the house. Who owns person B? Who is person A supposed to be renting person B from? Person B? Where is this even going?
In a lot of jobs it's not really that simple, though - it becomes far more 'be on hand all day and do what I tell you', especially when you're working in a small team. Your job description might be 'sales assistant', but you might also be the go-to cleaner up of spilt drinks, the person who fixes the manager's computer when it breaks, or asked to do any number of things as the need pops up. In which case you're certainly selling your time rather than any particular 'job' per se.
I don't know what a bobcat is, but I assume it has an owner. Who owns person B? Who is person A renting person B from?Same can be said when you're renting any other tool. If I rent a bobcat to tear out my lawn. I'm renting the bobcat to perform that specific job. I'm still saying "I'm renting a bobcat". Doesn't change the fact that I think of the bobcat as the thing that I'm renting, even if it's for some specific purpose.
I've never argued against that, in fact I think this is probably desirable, especially in professions that are not particularly nice to work in. If this is a statement in support of another point, rather than a point on it's own, I don't see how it's connected. If that's the case then could you elaborate?
I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see how that entails renting person B. I don't see how this constitutes the person being no more than the job that they do. I mean, that just seems like a really soulless way of viewing humanity in general...I guess I'm saying that if you need 34,000 seeds an acre planted 1 1/2 inches deep in 30 inch rows, you buy or rent a planter. If you need that planter moved you buy or rent a tractor. If you need that tractor driven precisely, you now or eventually will, drive that tractor with a GPS linked computer. Now, if you need erratic problem identification, erratic random maintenance to the equipment, assessment of soil conditions, an emergency correction driver to back up the GPS, and real time updates provided to you, contracted service providers, and your wife? Now what you need is an actual person. So you'll pay the hired man because what you need for those 8 to 16 hours is 8 to 16 hours of human attention. The adaptability is what makes the person necessary and is what makes my father value that time at about 15 dollars an hour.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see how that entails renting person B. I don't see how this constitutes the person being no more than the job that they do. I mean, that just seems like a really soulless way of viewing humanity in general...
Well, yeah, that's the point: capitalism is fundamentally inhumane. There's no way of filtering out the labour from the rest of the worker, so even if what you want is the labour, what you get is the whole person. The sale of labour independent of the sale of the body is a legal fiction, and while we might find it comforting, it doesn't describe the practical reality.I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see how that entails renting person B. I don't see how this constitutes the person being no more than the job that they do. I mean, that just seems like a really soulless way of viewing humanity in general...
Well, yeah, that's the point: capitalism is fundamentally inhumane. There's no way of filtering out the labour from the rest of the worker, so even if what you want is the labour, what you get is the whole person. The sale of labour independent of the sale of the body is a legal fiction, and while we might find it comforting, it doesn't describe the practical reality.
Not really. There is also the value of labor argument. Why does a cashier deserve $15/hour when their labor isn't worth nearly that amount and when they could just as easily be replaced by any marginally functional human being or by a machine?
At its most basic form, the value of one's labor is determined by how easily they can be replaced. Since just about any human being with a pulse can be a cashier, that means they are easily replaceable and thus, not worth as much to the company. An aerospace engineer on the other hand, requires much more than just a pulse to do their job so they are not as easily replaced as a cashier at Walmart, which makes their labor much more valuable to the company.
Also, while the cashier may have the same needs as anyone else in the economy, that does not mean they should be paid according to the cost of those needs. The value of one's labor should be the only factor when determining one's wage.
And what makes one's labor worth more than another person's? Well I discussed one reason above with the 'replaceability' factor. Another reason would be the level of education one must achieve before being able to do the job. A person must invest a lot more time and effort into being a doctor or a welder than they do to be able to ring someone up at the grocery store. The amount of responsibility one must take on is another factor. Do you see where I'm going with this or should I continue? There are many factors that determine how valuable one's labor is, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone is an essential member of society.
At its most basic form, the value of one's labor is determined by how easily they can be replaced. Since just about any human being with a pulse can be a cashier, that means they are easily replaceable and thus, not worth as much to the company. An aerospace engineer on the other hand, requires much more than just a pulse to do their job so they are not as easily replaced as a cashier at Walmart, which makes their labor much more valuable to the company.
Also, while the cashier may have the same needs as anyone else in the economy, that does not mean they should be paid according to the cost of those needs. The value of one's labor should be the only factor when determining one's wage.
And what makes one's labor worth more than another person's? Well I discussed one reason above with the 'replaceability' factor. Another reason would be the level of education one must achieve before being able to do the job. A person must invest a lot more time and effort into being a doctor or a welder than they do to be able to ring someone up at the grocery store. The amount of responsibility one must take on is another factor. Do you see where I'm going with this or should I continue? There are many factors that determine how valuable one's labor is, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone is an essential member of society.
Well, obviously there are moral differences between being careless with a rented tool and careless with an employee. But from a cost/return? The backhoe and the hired man go through the same evaluation. Will it produce more value to me per hour than it will cost me? I mean, I might hire Harry because he's my friend and he needs 15 bucks an hour for a day, but that's really not a business decision at that point.
Well, yeah, that's the point: capitalism is fundamentally inhumane. There's no way of filtering out the labour from the rest of the worker, so even if what you want is the labour, what you get is the whole person. The sale of labour independent of the sale of the body is a legal fiction, and while we might find it comforting, it doesn't describe the practical reality.
There are degrees of completeness of of the hiring though. Mowing a lawn exchanges physical location and some degree of mental capacity, but leaves the employee much of their brain to think about whatever they want to think about. Thinning corn, which requires both physical location and counting at a high rate of speed occupies both body and mind. And generally pays less even though the sale of selftime is more complete. I suppose you could work a comparison to lots of other stuff in here from time-flexible socially-flexible creative work, to answering phones from home, to sex industry.