[maceo]

Human labor is not a commodity.

This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time, said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork." And working people, along with the management class for the most part, understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.

The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.

It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like these to a serious critique.

[smil]

That labor is a commodity is not an "idea", but in the case of Uber drivers and the Foxconn workers who assemble iPhones, a fact. It is a fact because that's how those jobs and service/production processes have been designed. The work has been broken down into their smallest parts, so that it will require no special skill or intelligence to perform them. As anyone can do those jobs, they have been de facto commoditized.

For someone who cares for the wellbeing of people at the bottom of the enterprise pyramids, the goal should be to design new organizations, with jobs that have latitude for learning and development, that is multi-disciplinary and creative. And many of the worst jobs today should be automated because they are not fit for human beings.

[maceo]

In that regard, it's been a fact since the division of labor was first outlined (and then fetishized) in the late 18th century. In terms of breaking down the tasks needed to build the final product, early Ford factories were just as efficient as modern Foxconn assembly plants.

I'm not arguing whether it's a fact or not. Culturally, in 2015 America it's a fact. In 1915 America, the same "fact" would have been handily rejected, even by conservative minds. Most people only read the first chapter of Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith extolls the virtues of the division of labor. The second half of the book, where he warns that the division of labor taken to the extreme could result in unfathomable social ills, and we ought not ever travel down that path, is usually conveniently ignored.

I'm all for automating jobs that technology deems unnecessary. The solution isn't to push everyone into some multi-disciplinary creative class. Many people would be very happy as uber drivers, or any other menial job, if they were treated with respect by their employer. I'd say the solution begins with treating workers with dignity and respect.

[smil]

>I'm all for automating jobs that technology deems unnecessary. The solution isn't to push everyone into some multi-disciplinary creative class. Many people would be very happy as uber drivers, or any other menial job, if they were treated with respect by their employer. I'd say the solution begins with treating workers with dignity and respect.

I agree, but the problem is not a moral problem but a business problem. How do you design a product, and then the process of making that product, so that you can afford to treat employees well in a competitive, global market? I'd even put it like this: How can you turn paying employees more into a competitive advantage?

[hueving]

>The solution isn't to push everyone into some multi-disciplinary creative class. Many people would be very happy as uber drivers, or any other menial job, if they were treated with respect by their employer.

I'm not going to use Uber if they are paying the driver $40/hr as a real employee (which translates to closer to $80/hr cost) simply because it will cost more than a cab at that point.

[javert]

> Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

Because of Ayn Rand. You think I'm joking, but she's the only intellectually serious defender of capitalism in the 20th century, and her influence is snowballing. When Rand was alive, members of her circle would rejoice at the extremely occasional mention of her name in print. Now, you can't turn on the TV or go anywhere online without hearing about her.

As a side note, human labor is not a commodity. However, "capital" (as you call it---you use a lot of Marxist terms in your post that do not reflect the reality of society) does not have an obligation to hire you on your terms, either. Labor is about a voluntarily trade.

[nyolfen]

the neoliberal project as organized by the various branches that sprouted from the mont pelerin society have had much more concrete impact on policy for the last 30 years than rand's acolytes alone. they're from the same tradition as many of rand's beliefs but they're the apparatus that engineered the neoliberal order.

[javert]

Yeah, I was probably over-broad in what I said, in the following sense. Ayn Rand has been the only moral defender of capitalism.

On Mount Pelerin:

> Its founders included Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman.

How many of those guys come up on TV and in politics today? None of them.

[maceo]

The only reason Ayn Rand ever comes up is because she has vague name recognition and the Democrats use her to take easy cheap-shots. They do the same thing with Koch Industries. In reality, Koch Industries' alleged influence is greatly exaggerated. The economists listed above are all academic giants compared to Rand.

In most parts of Latin America, the names Friedman and Hayek are far more likely to be recognized than Rand. And rightfully so. Unlike Rand, they advised governments. Brutal dictatorships mostly.

[javert]

No, the reason Democrats take shots at Ayn Rand is because Democrats have the moral high ground in the public's view, and have for decades, and there has only been a single person to challenge that: Ayn Rand. She really is a threat. If the Democrats lose the moral high ground, it's over for them.

Contrast this with Republicans: They are generally quibbling compromisers who say they are opposed to government expansion, but actually agree with it on a moral level, so all they accomplish is barely slowing down the rate of government expansion. The Bush presidency is a case in point, but you can see this "quibbling compromise" in practically all major Republican politicians.

[nyolfen]

lol dude i think you might want to take a step back and look at election results (on all levels) 'for decades' if you think democrats have any perceptible 'high ground' among the american public

[hackuser]

This is one of the most valuable comments I've read in years; thank you.