Talk:Wage labour

Removed pending citation

This concept is most often used by anti-capitalists, including socialists and most anarchists, to describe the socio-economic relationship between an employer and an employee in capitalism. This relationship creates a labour market, in which the worker sells their labour power and the employer buys it.

- FrancisTyers 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cited. [1] - FrancisTyers 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0, I understand your point that "wage labour" is a term used by non-Marxists, but it is a term of Marxist theory, as is "mode of production". You'll note that in that article, it is clearly contextualized. Or do you claim that non-Marxist economists also use the terms in the same way? I am also surprised that you deleted the reference to the working class, which is pretty much synonymous with wage labour (as the name of a class) in Marxist theory, if I'm not mistaken. --Macrakis 19:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have a point. I'll go reword it. I removed the reference to the working class because the class itself is not the definition of wage labour. -- infinity0 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Marx came up with the concept though. I'll leave the intro for now, but I'll rewrite some of the other parts. -- infinity0 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition

The system of wage labour is defined this way. It's not just the labour the employer buys, but the contract of continued labour from the employee too. It's not just used by Marxists, but by anarchists as well, as is shown by one of the sources. -- infinity0 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any formal definitions of wage labour apart from the one used in anti-capitalist critique. That definition points out that what is being sold is not only labour but liberty (eg anarchists) and/or labour power (eg Marxists). In any case, what is being sold isn't just "labour". Are there any other definitions which differ from this view? -- infinity0 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, when is wage labour not implemented via a labour market? -- infinity0 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Selling

What is being sold? Labour or the contract of labour? Most criticisms would say that the contract of labour, and other things such as time and liberty, not just the labour, is being sold. -- infinity0 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage

Wage labour is different from wage - just read the intro. Unless a reason is given, I'm taking the notice down. -- infinity0 14:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge this with wages

This article and wages should be merged. Wages for labor and wage labor are the same thing. (Good luck on finding a source that says they're not the same thing). RJII 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon, Marx, blah blah, blah, ALL cited in the article, plus the first source of the article which is a book from a non-anti-capitalist author.

The emergence of a 'labour market' in industrial societies implies not just greater competition and increased mobility of economic resources, but also the specific form of the work relationship which is described by the idea of wage labour and its legal expression, the contract of employment.

Wage labour is a contract. Wage is a payment. -- infinity0 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is your flawed "original research" that wages paid for labor and wage labor are two different things. Wages are paid under contract -- you and someone else agree that you'll do an hour of work for a certain amount of money. Wage/wage labor --same thing. RJII 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage labour is the term given to this contract and the relationship it creates. It's very specific, and certainly a clear, separate concept from "wage". -- infinity0 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Find a source that says wages and wage labor are two different things. RJII 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"the specific form of the work relationship which is described by the idea of wage labour" - wage labour is a work relationship, not a method of payment. -- infinity0 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, RJII, you didn't even have to scroll the page to read it. -- infinity0 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source that says wages paid for labor and wage labor are not the same thing. RJII 17:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed two different things. "Wage" is economics, "wage-labour" is political science. Just like "Human" would be primarily biology; and "humanity" would be sociology or history. •Jim62sch• 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Concept of Wage Labour

This artical has numerous flaws in its strurcutre. To Start the article cites wage labour as; the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer in which the worker sells labour under a contract (employment), and the employer buys it, often in a labour market.[1]

This does not only apply to wage labour but to any type of employment in a capitalist economy. Employees on a salary in most cases will be bound to a contract stating what the salary is. Secondly a source used The Law of the Labour Market provides a link to a book review.????!??? Are we to beleive that the author has read this book?

What about the fact that Hiring Method is included under "Types of Wage Labour"? Is this a type of wage labour? No. This is jargon that obscures the subject matter of the topic. But then again what is that subject matter of this very article? There is a brief outline as to how capitalism is shaping the labour market (in that there is a large percentage of workers who are paid by wage as opposed to other forms) but then there is no explanation as to the value of wage labour under a capatilist economy. Only sketchy fragments of anarchist or marxist theory which are not at all comprehensive.

And where are the sources for these bold statements? The most common form of wage labour nowadays is a contract in which a free worker sells his labour for a predetermined time (e.g. a few months or a year), in return for a money-wage or salary. Wage labour has existed in one form or another for thousands of years in many different kinds of societies.

This is the kind of stuff that a 14 year old puts in their homework.

OK, I changed "types" to forms". Deleting it doesn't seem to be the right approach. If you know a lot, why don't you add to the article instead of deleting a whole paragraph (which you haven't justified) and changing a few words? And why did you remove "labour power" which is the concept used in Marxism? -- infinity0 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think 14 year olds learn about wage labour. -- infinity0 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms: My basic intention in posting this comment was that there is not enough explanation of the concept. I do not think you have demonstrated the use of wage labour under a capitalist economy. In fact the use of the concept has not been given muchthought by any form of economics other than socialist or communist theory. And on that note neither have you provided a comprehensive explanation to the opposition to wage labour (or critisisms should i say)which you would find in communist or socialist litrature.

Worker

Both employee and employer can be working and thus both can be called "workers". So, in my opinion, term "worker" should be replaced by "employee". -- Vision Thing -- 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms: True but a person who employs might not be the owner. If we are to introduce communist/socialist theories (which the article already has)we see the problem lies not with the empooyer but the owner, who can be completely different people. If you look at a large corporation such as microsoft the head of the company is the CEO. He might not neccesarily own the company and he will undoubedtly have to answer to another authority, such as a board of directors. So when we say that the labourer is alienated from the means of production it is not because of the relationship between the employer and employee but between the owner of the means of production and the employee. The employer does not have to own the assets.

Source for definition

The definition in the article is sourced to "The Law of the Labour Market, Oxford University Press, 2005" I have a feeling this was just pulled off of the review of the book in the Amazon link. Can we get a quote from the book defining it that way, and a page number? RJII 03:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

infinity citing non-credible sources

infinity, stop adding non-credible sources. Wikipedia policy says "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing. WP:V says: "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." RJII 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ is a credible source, since it is being published by AK Press. -- infinity0 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It has not been published, and according to you they emailed you back when you asked them and said: " Hopefully we'll see it in the next couple years but until then you'll have to read it online." "Going to be published" is not good enough. Obviously, it's not in a state that's ready to be published according to AK's standards. Abide by the Wikipedia sourcing policy. RJII 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the sole source. The marxists.org glossary agrees with it. -- infinity0 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy. You can only cite these things "only in articles about them." You cannot cite these online self-published sources in any other Wikipedia articles. You can cite "An Anarchist FAQ" in An Anarchist FAQ and you can site Marxists.org in Marxists.org. That's it. RJII 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not personal websites. You are mis-citing policy. -- infinity0 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether you want to call it a "personal website" or not is irrelevant. WP:V says that self-published sources are not good enough for Wikipedia. Obey the policy. RJII 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." Review the WP:V policy, learn it, and obey it. RJII 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're twisting the policy to suit yourself. Are you really suggesting marxists.org is non-credible? The marxists.org site cites Marx. So why are you deleting that part? Also, why are you deleting the second paragraph? It says "most criticism" then cites one piece of criticim as a primary source. -- infinity0 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Marxist.org is a non-credible source according to Wikipedia standards. To cite it as a primary source, on Wikipedia, means citing in an aritcle about Marxists.org. The policy is clear. Obey it. RJII 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The marxists.org page cites Marx directly. And why are you deleting the second paragraph? -- infinity0 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If marxists.org cites Marx directly then why don't you just cite Marx directly? I deleted the second paragraph because it was sourced by the FAQ. RJII 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read those paragraphs again. What are you talking about, RJII? Those paragraphs use those sources as primary sources. "They see wage labour as blah, [cite what they think]". "Most criticims centres around, [cite example of criticism]." -- infinity0 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're giving the opinons of Marxists.org and "An Anarchist FAQ". They have to be left out entirely. You can cite the original sources that they talk about, of course, but you can't use any of their editorial or arguments and the primary sources that you cite better be pretty explicitly reflective of your editorial. RJII 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That is what the sentence in the article says is being done. "They think" and "Most criticisms centre around". They are being used as primary sources. -- infinity0 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't use them as primary sources here. To use them as primary sources means to use them in the articles An Anarchist FAQ and Marxists.org. This article is about wage labor, not An Anarchist FAQ and Marxists.org. RJII 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing stating where a source can be used as a primary source. The section is about criticism and the subject of that particular sentence is the criticisers - hence, primary source usage. Please, just let this one go and stop being difficult. -- infinity0 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you read the policy? "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." RJII 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems very strange. I'll go take that up on the talk page. -- infinity0 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)