So labor is wealth now? This is the same argument again. I could also discover oil on my property, or build a bigger house on it with my own labor, or all the other houses could get destroyed in an earthquake. Or, on the other side, someone could invent a new process or tool that makes your skills obsolete. Or a million immigrants could show up and bid labor prices down. These all change the amount of labor I will want in return for my house. But none are wealth transfer. Labor is how wealth is produced but it is not wealth itself.
Labor is how we create wealth. It is the only way we create wealth.
Wealthy people get to purpose more of their time than poor people do.
Time is money, money is time, OK?
Wealth can be assigned a value in terms of money.
Now, those who created the means expect to be valued and for the means to have value.
The basis for that value is the additional wealth per labor unit the means makes possible. As for their value... let's just call that a promise or suggestion of mutual benefit in the future and leave it there.
A great creator, innovator will make others around them wealthy, unless they require too much for having done the work. This is not hard to see.
With that in mind, let us further assign a dollar amount to all of that. Once we do, then we also assign dollar amounts to labor so they may be traded with greater efficiency and or flexibility.
With me so far?
When the dollar amount of that past work output is valued high, it can be said the greater percentage of wealth created by labor goes to those who own the means, tools.
Value too high, and labor fails to deliver enough value for the laborers. It may cost them more to perform the labor than said labor delivers to them.
And there is the harm done.
It may make more sense for laborers to abandon that expensive, though productive means, and secure more value per unit of labor, despite being less productive, and or potentially non compliant. They may simply employ the means and pay less, or nothing too, creating conflict.
Regardless of what the law is, or any of us may say or feel, the human costs and risks always present themselves and must always be met, or the people cease to exist.
Given how undesirable ceasingbto exist is, society often makes up the difference via subsidy, assistance of various kinds. This mostly assures more compliance, and does cost everyone.
And there you have increased crime, black markets of various kinds driven by people whose labor fails to generate enough wealth relative to their costs and risks associated with their existence and or showing up for work.
Taking money out of all that would look the same, just without the dollars.
It might look like that owner of the means having a large food store, or requires too much compensatory labor for their benefit, leaving the others in town poor, in that their labor fails to meet their collective costs and risks, which leaves them time poor, and therefore not wealthy, despite a means of being more wealthy available.
reply