|
|
|
|
|
by boringg
797 days ago
|
|
I didn't bring in economic money supply to the conversation so your comment is unrelated to mine. You created a strawman. I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare." And I want to just highlight that "all wealth is labour" is actually not a universally held truth nor a fundamental fact of economics but is the basis for one theory of economics: the Labor theory of value (Smith and Marx). Build your argument from a solid foundation and not something that is easily picked at apart by inaccuracies if you want to yield influence. |
|
I'm not saying that all labour creates wealth. That's something else and I don't believe it. Trench warfare is the most laborious thing imaginable and it certainly creates no wealth.
> I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare."
You absolutely did not, but I sensed that angle. The difference is that a worker will never receive any wages in exchange of not doing anything, while a landlord will always receive his wages for not doing anything. "How their own lives are funded" are through their labour when it comes to the worker and through the worker's labour when it comes to the landlord.