Talk:Wage slavery

The addition of Böhm-Bawerk's nonsense

Someone wrote that Eugen Böhm-Bawerk argued that "workers benefit from working under capitalists because they get wages before a final product can realize its revenue potential." This is a variation of the argument for risk already addressed in the article. A chattel slave owner may feed, house, clothe and heal the wounds of an expensive slave before selling the products that the slave made or the cotton he picked. Does that mean that the slave benefits? Secondly even the factual assumptions have low credibility, as wage laborers making, say, ice-cream (or countless other products) may sell lots of it for the capitalist before they get paid at the end of the month. In any case, should a sweatshop laborer be grateful because she gets paid one week before the product gets sold rather than a week after? Should she get paid less than someone at a more forward stage of production?

Also nonsense is the notion that "The reason why workers opt for wages is because they have a high time preference while the capitalist's low time preference has him willing to forgo capital for future returns". First of all, the origins of capitalism have practically nothing to do with deferred consumption, but with transferable accumulations of profit and wealth going all the way back to prior social systems like chattel slavery and colonialism, or heinous actions like the slaughter of native peoples. Secondly, capitalist investment is, by definition, capital not needed for the basic necessities of life, so you can't compare a capitalist forgoing buying his tenth Rolls Royce to update a machine in his factory with a mother forgoing food, shelter or her children's education. Yes, the capitalist can forgo buying his tenth Rolls Royce for another 5 years while the mother can't forgo food for as long. Her "time preference" is lower. Gee I wonder why? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Must say I agree on all points with 69.228.251.134. I'm ignorant of the academic literature on this subject, so I don't even know who Böhm-Bawerk is/was without looking him up; but I do know that when I've read that "time preference" sentence, it's always struck me as flawed, although I never tried to delve into replacing it. I figured to myself, "Yeah, they have a 'high time preference' alright, because they need to eat today, not 4 weeks from now." Meanwhile the factory owner is eating well regardless of what capital investments he makes this week or next month. In other words, I had the same reaction you did. — ¾-10 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how there is anything flawed within an argument for time preference, unless yo are claiming to be immortal and thus unaffected by time as an input into your decision making. You are both fighting or building a case against the context and not against the actual exchange itself. The context being that of a corporate capitalist world, established not through trade but conquest. One in which through political means, certain actors are given legal power and preference and protection and insulation in the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This pointless rant against Bohm Bawerk was I must admit, quite funny, but innapropiate for Wikipedia standards 201.215.87.119 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fromm's materialistic notion of self

I looked through Fromm, but couldn't find where he says explicitly that the "having" mode fosters authoritarian tendencies, but that the "being" mode doesn't. It does, however, seem plausible from what is written in the book. I've added a request for a page number in case.

The passage I'm questioning starts with this:

Erich Fromm noted that if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or even thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages), then, a fear of loss may create anxiety...--Heptadecagon (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fromm wrote a whole book on the subject. It's called "To Have or To Be". just google it 69.228.251.134 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, by "I looked through Fromm," I meant I looked through "To Have or To Be." I looked at a copy in the library, but I couldn't find where Fromm says or suggests this:

"...if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or even thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages), then, a fear of loss may create anxiety and authoritarian tendencies because that person's sense of identity is threatened. In contrast, when a person's sense of self is based on what he experiences in a state of being (creativity, ego or loss of ego, love, sadness, taste, sight etc.) with a less materialistic regard for what he once had and lost, or may lose, then less authoritarian tendencies prevail. The state of being, in his view, flourishes under a worker-managed workplace and economy, whereas self-ownership entails a materialistic notion of self, created to rationalize the lack of worker control that would allow for a state of being."

If you wrote this, would you supply a page number or rewrite it so that it's easily verifiable?--Heptadecagon (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch this BBC Interview Excerpt with Erich Fromm. It confirms the text isn't synthesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7GpHrdXOFI 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the video, Fromm says at 1:26, "The sense of identity based on what I have is always threatened. A person is anxiously concerned of not to lose what he has, because he doesn't lose just what he has, he loses his sense of self." I watched all four parts of the interview and he doesn't mention the effect of the having and being modes on authoritarian tendencies. It might be true, but Fromm doesn't say this, at least not in the video you linked to. Adding it is an unpublished synthesis, unless you can provide a page number in a book written by Fromm that anyone can easily verify.

Where does Fromm talk about the "good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages"?

Further, one can't verify without potentially laborious searching of Fromm's work that "the state of being, in his view, flourishes under a worker-managed workplace and economy, whereas self-ownership entails a materialistic notion of self, created to rationalize the lack of worker control that would allow for a state of being." Where does Fromm say that worker-managed workplaces are conducive to the state of being? Again, it might be true, but, unless you can provide a page number where Fromm says this, it is an unpublished synthesis. I've looked in To Have or To Be, but couldn't find it. I might have missed it. I imagine you know the book better than I do, so please provide a page number or numbers, if it appears several times in the book. I think we should note, as it says just below the text box into which I'm typing, that "encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Heptadecagon (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll first quote from Fromm's To Have or To Be:

"To achieve a society based on being, all people must actively participate in their economic function as citizens. Hence, our liberation from the having mode of existence is possible only through the full realization of industrial and political participatory democracy...Industrial democracy implies that each member of a large industrial or other organization plays an active role in the life of the organization; that each is fully informed and participates in decision making..." (p.147)

And Fromm's The Sane Society:

"Wage slavery will exist as long as there is a man or institution that is the master of men: it will be ended when the workers...resolve[] to end the industrial system that makes them slaves. First, then, what is the nature of the ideal at which Labour must aim? What is meant by that 'control of industry' which workers are to demand? It can be summed up in two words--direct management. The task of actually conducting the business must be handed over to the workers engaged in it. To them it must belong to order production, distribution and exchange. They must win industrial self-government..." (p.278)

(173.164.194.214 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

It can't make it as article content, but we're pasting it to talk

[Cross-posted from Talk:Slavery in the United States > It can't make it as article content, but we're pasting it to talk, which see.] — ¾-10 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If something concrete can be added and references given, great, otherwise, the article already offers a footnoted historical treatment of the economic advantages of wage labor over chattel slavery, or the institutional and ideological ways wage labor developed and it has been maintained. (69.228.251.134 (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

It's a good contribution (although not to a Wikipedia article). Someone should find more current/modern info for this article, vs. all this history.

Also you should stop making bad youtube videos.--66.49.181.19 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User 62.163.198.85 is repeatedly vandalizing the article

Not sure how to report it, but as you can see in the edit history, this user is engaging in vandalism (173.164.194.214 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)).

References are a mess

I've noticed this pop up on Sociology GANs article alerts. Quick look suggests a quick fail on at least one count: references are a mess. See WP:CITE for how to, and try to convert everything into proper citation templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, can somebody fix them a bit? (173.164.194.214 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

Child Labour

Would it be okay to add a link to "child labour"? Catlover98 (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I think it should be added because by studying it it shows children (and adults) were very oppressed. Catlover98 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Douglass was paid while a slave

In the 4th paragraph of 'history" it says 'The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared "Now I am my own master" when he took a paying job.' He states earlier (a few pages) several times, that he was paid while a slave: "In the course of one year from the time I left Mr Gardner's, I was able to command the highest wages, given to the most experienced calkers..." "After learning how to calk, I sought my own employment, made my own contracts, and collected the money which I earned." He states that he had to give all the money he earned to Master Hugh. He brought his master from six to seven dollars per week, & he sometimes brought him nine dollars, which he was forced to give to his master. So it's wrong to add "when he took a paying job." He was sometimes given six cents, and there are many stories where slaves were able to find their own work & keep some or all of what they earned. Plus many slaves earned enough to buy their own freedom. Catlover98 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wage slavery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Connolly15 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written, but is not concise and at times is repetitive (see discussion section). The article's clarity at times is questionable as well as it strays off topic at times. Generally, it is written more like an essay than an encyclopaedia.
	1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article needs to make a number of changes to meet the MoS. See discussion section below.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
	2a. it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.	The article does contain a large number of citations, but they are not all properly formatted.
	2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.	There are a number of examples of facts and figures not being cited (for example, the salaries of employees in Dubai. See general discussion below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above. Facts are provided with no citations. I have not undertaken a careful review of the many sources quoted to ensure that WP:Synthesis is not at issue here, but this could be undertaken at a later stage when other issues are resolved.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No obvious issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article strays into unnecessary detail, such as defining terms that are already linked to (e.g. capitalism). The history of the wage slavery is also covered in a number of sections (even outside of the history section) in too great detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears to balance differing historical opinions well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
	6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues.
	6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article would make an excellent essay, but needs work done to meet Wikipedia's MoS and other guidelines.

Discussion

General Comments

• The history section lacks focus.

• Terms are unnecessarily defined as if an essay is being presented that is disconnected from Wikipedia. For example, under “Capitalism” the first sentence says: “Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods.” It’s not necessary to define capitalism as it is linked.

LEDE

• WP:LEADCITE (MoS) - Although there is no rule against citations in the lede, in a good article they should be unnecessary as they would be redundant because the lede is meant to only summarize the article itself.

History

• WP:ITALIC (MoS) - Titles should be italicized (“De Officicus” by Cicero) … quotations should not be italicised (under section “Self-Identity problems and stress”)

• MOS:Quote (MoS) - Please review MoS requirements on quotations. The block quote from Cicero appears inappropriate given its length.

• WP:ALLEGED (MoS) - Avoid expressions of doubt such as, “The first articulate description of wage slavery was perhaps made by…”

”The use of the term wage slave by labor organizations may originate…”

• WP:EMBED (MoS) – The use of a list for the arguments comparing wage workers to chattel slavery does not meet MoS requirements.

• Section is repetitive – “The imagery of wage slavery was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century to object to the lack of workers' self-management. However, it was gradually replaced by the more neutral term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century, as labor organizations shifted their focus to raising wages.” Then later in the same section, “The term 'wage slavery' was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century, but the structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism … Thus, "wage slavery" was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century.”

• WP:PEACOCK – avoid “peacock terms” such as in this case: “C. L. R. James made a famous argument that…”

• WP:WEASEL – avoid unsupported attributions – “Some supporters of wage and chattel slavery have linked …”

“Proponents of the viewpoint that”

• WP:JARGON – avoid jargon that is not defined or linked, such as “European radicalism”

Treatment in various economic systems

• First paragraph has only one citation?

Opinions on psychological effects

• No citations in the first two paragraphs of “Lower Wages” section

• No citations to support facts in “Lowest Wages” section.

---Note--- I have stopped reading in detail at this point. Hopefully the above examples give editors monitoring this article a sense of what, IMHO, needs to be tackled throughout the article. There are particular MoS concerns and the article does come off like more of any essay than an encyclopaedia.

I hope my comments are not considered overly harsh. I try to be as critical as possible to help improve the article. Please do consider resubmitting the article for review once it is compliant with the MoS.

Lowest Wages - POV

Regarding the section "Lowest Wages", the section seems to rely on a single source (a good one mind you). I am not disputing the facts, but as part of the review I thought I would flag this section so editors who are more familiar with the article can examine it. Connolly15 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)