Monday, October 5, 2009
Locke and Indirect Labor
When we read Locke we are at once confronted with one important point, for Locke everything is tied up in labor. For example an apple hanging on a tree has no worth, it only has value if a person expends the effort to go and get it off the tree. This example is neat and tidy and fits well within the world that Locke inhabited. Another good example would have been gold; gold occurs in veins deep beneath the surface and until the labor is expended to bring it up the gold has no value at all. As far as the people walking around the surface hundreds of feet above the gold it might as well not be there if they have no means of extracting it. However in the modern era, most people do not do manual labor such as gold mining or apple picking. This leads us to an important question, modern labor is predicated upon mental actions and thus we are left to wonder if we have the same rights to the metaphorical fruits of our labors as the apple picker has to the literal fruits of his labors. Being only a humble student I can’t state definitively what Locke would say about these things if he lived in the modern era, however I can offer my best guess based of the readings and class discussions. While Locke did not live in the modern era there are certain analogues to help me try and tackle this question. In Locke’s time there was the question of indirect labor, even during Locke times there was a specialization of labor and thus a person might make tools which could be used to produce products. Locke discussed this question and stated that indirect work was just as much a form of labor as direct labor. The difficulty in determining just what property should be received is resolved by the use of money, this means that a person can receive the fruits of their labors without having to directly divide up the fruits of the sum of the indirect labors. For example if a person used a forge to make a hammer they would be paid for the hammer in cash as opposed to receiving a compensation for whatever was built with that hammer. The hammer maker still receives his property justly earned through labor and the hammer buyer is able to use his own labor to enhance his own ousia through the use of the hammer. Using this example I think that in all probability Locke would conclude that our modern diversified economy is only a more complex version of the hammer maker’s example and that people still can earn property through the use of their labor even if it is indirect and not physical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Though this may be the case in some situations I do not think that it always works out that way. How would Locke then explain the people who are wealthy just because they were born into it (ie trust fund babies)? They did absolutely nothing to gain their wealth while there are people that work constantly and are still struggling to get by. According to Locke those people who work more should technically have more capital but this is not the case always.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to such a "humble" student, I would agree that Locke would view our modern economy as simply a more complex spin off of labor. Though, I don't know if he would agree with some of our practices. Locke stated that people should basically make as much as the labor they put in. Thus, all inequality resulting from the hording of money was justified, because the harder you work, the more money should should make. But this idea isn't applicable to some modern jobs. For example, some CEO's of major companies (lets say for example, coke) make many times more money than an average worker. After doing a little sleuthing on the internet (correct me if I'm wrong about any of these figures), I found that the CEO of coke in 2006 was making around 6.5 million dollars a year (not including bonuses which would make this statistic even more extravagant). The average coke worker in, say Tennessee, who was making minimum wage (6.15 an hour), would make a little under 13 thousand dollars a year if he or she worked a 40 hour work week 52 weeks a year. (I would also like to point out that other countries around the world do not necessarily have the same minimum wage laws so workers in other countries could be making even less than that). Given that the CEO makes 6.5 million dollars a year and the worker makes 13 thousand dollars a year, the CEO makes 500 times what the minimum wage worker makes. Is the CEO doing 500 times the amount of labor the worker is? I would agree that being a CEO is a stressful job and is obviously more difficult than a job that pays minimum wage, but does the CEO really work 500 times harder than the worker? This seems unfair to me and I think Locke would agree.
ReplyDeleteBen that was a really good point and I completely agree. I think our society is too complex to say Locke's model still applies. There are so many more issues, like inheritance. My brother's friend makes 80 dollars for every hours hes alive. So his labor would be what? breathing? Also today we seem to put more value on some jobs versus others. Actors and athletes are paid ridiculous amounts, whereas teachers or firefighters, who work regular hours year round, are not paid nearly enough. Even though the teachers and such have jobs which are much more influential and needed in society, we place more value on the actors and athletes, whose job requires much less labor. Although i understand the original argument in that with money, our society is just a more complex form of Locke's theory, I think there are still too many exceptions in our society for his theory to apply entirely.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that I am arguing Locke's model doesn't apply, just that we are assigning more value that we should to certain types of labor. Actors and athletes are good examples of this. Locke would say that his system still applies, just that since actors and athletes don't do as much labor as a firefighter or police officer, they shouldn't get paid as much. He would say that our system is just a corruption of his. Locke doesn't have as much problem with inheritance, because people who have made money through labor should be able to pass on that wealth to whom ever they want.
ReplyDeleteI think the point that you're missing is that labor is not the same thing as work, imagine if a person uses a bulldozer to move earth and another person uses a shovel. In an 8 hour workday the worker who used the bulldozer will have used less energy than the worker who used a shovel but the bulldozer driver will have gotten far more work done. It's true Ben that the CEO of Coca Cola doesn't work 500 times the number of hours that an ordinary worker does but during the hours he does work he generates at least 500 times the revenue for the company than one of the ordinary worker will. The work that is done by a CEO is fundamentally different from the work done by a guy who packs boxes. While it might seem unfair and believe me I've seen people that made me wince with shame seeing how hard they worked at the end of the day workers are paid for results and not for mere effort. Locke would applaud the system we have today because if recognizes that Labor is not the same thing as effort. Locke distinguishes in his writing between a field that is untended and one that is cultivated, he says that the cultivated field returns 10 times the return of the uncultivated one.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a difference between effort and labor, Locke says they are directly related. Locke says that labor metaphysically changes the nature of that which the labor is being done on. It is easy to see what the box packer is doing labor on, but I am confused, what the CEO is doing labor on?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in Locke's time, anyone could go off and find uncultivated land to cultivate. There was an equality in this system that isn't there in the CEO box packer example. The box packer doesn't have the same opportunity to do the same kind of labor as the CEO.
A couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. Although Locke does present the discoveries of the Age of Exploration as validating his position with regard to the earth's infinite bounty, nevertheless he was not so naive as to be unaware of the constraints on the poor or the consolidation of power and resources in the hands of the few. To put it another way, Locke's writings evince an optimistic look at the future rather than a valid depiction of the past.
2. Yes, labor is a metaphysical change on/in the world. Yes, money is a representation of labor. But there is no demonstrable disconnect between these points. Although CEOs might make for a more difficult (read: anachronistic) analogy with Locke, we could think of someone who owns a number of mines. This individual may not actually have worked a day in his life with his hands, although he has amassed great wealth by administering his investments. The question, then, seems to revolve around whether Locke would consider this individual's wealth--which is solely earned via his investments and position, not due to anything he could actually present physically as the "product" of his labor--to be justified. The answer is, in fact, that Locke *does* consider this a justifiable acquisition, insofar as the individual has used his situation for the "betterment" of the land, the jobs created or maintained, etc., etc. Thus: (a) Nick's point regarding the bulldozer and the shovel is specious as written. What would make it valid is if the bulldozer operator either invented the bulldozer, or had specialist training in its operation, or owned the bulldozer but was simply contracted to shovel, or some other mitigating factor which would constitute greater desert on his part than the shovel-wielding laborer. Nick's latter point regarding that which is generated by the CEO--if true--would be a valid reading of Locke, but not insofar as the CEO has done something better than the boxer. Rather, the CEO's worth, Locke must admit, is based upon perception: it is a consequence of the publicly traded companies interested parties, and there conclusions regarding competitive pay. Combine Hobbes and Locke here: the CEO is essentially a body-politic of his own, and insofar as his investments and interests extend outward through his employees, he is actively responsible for their labor as a necessary consequence of his own labor. (b) However, the critiques of this point do have their own strong merit from a Lockean standpoint. It is questionable if Locke would consider the kind of price-fixing which goes on at the top of the system to be justifiable based on that which is actually performed by the individual CEO who is being paid as much. Put another way, it is difficult to see how Locke could justify the astronomical pay discrepancies in our society without amending or tweaking his metaphysical system of political economy. Then again, we must remember that Locke also justified slavery on simultaneously despicable yet valid grounds which place the fault and responsibility on those enslaved. In other words, the question may not be whether Locke would agree with CEO pay. The question may be whether we agree with Locke's system which necessarily leads to this type of situation, and its subsequent debate.
Regarding Harwood's previous post, I do not think CEO's should be making 500 times what the average box packer does. Not everyone has the same opportunity to become a CEO, so I don't think they should be paid so much more. Yes, a CEO has more responsibility than a box packer, so they should make more money, but I think that 500 times more is too much.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to what ben is saying, your comments are just based on personal belief, you say that you don't think that the CEO should be paid 500 times more but you then say that you accept that they should make more you just don't think 500 times is the right amount. If you accept the arguement that I am making about a person using their talents to accomplish things without ever doing any physical labor then I don't see how you can oppose the CEO being paid whatever the market will bear. Regarding Professor Harwood, I agree that the bulldozer example is probably not the best example, an example of a person buying a fleet of bulldozers and then contracting them out to move earth for other people would probably be more valid.
ReplyDeleteNick, I don't think Ben is arguing with talent vs. labor, I think it's more a question of the ridiculous excessive amount that they get for their talent vs. the non-proportional amount that the laborers get.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you nick that if you take into account all that the CEO does, his job is more difficult than an average box packer. The worth of his talent may exceed the worth of the box packer's labor, but I do not understand how it can be 500 times greater. There may be a perceived worth, but this perceived worth is much higher than any intrinsic worth.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I believe the substance of the argument between Nick and Ben to be less academic and more in the nature of a disagreement. Neither of you are necessarily presenting Lockean points. Rather, you are both essentially disagreeing with Locke. Ben, you are essentially stating that Locke's system might validate such a discrepancy in pay, but if it does it is wrong because it belies the unjustifiable and unstable nature of human markets and perceived values. If I might paraphrase your argument, either Locke wouldn't agree with such disproportionate pay (as it is based on perception rather than metaphysics), or if he did it would belie a problem with his metaphysical system (as it exposes the system's inability simultaneously to account for or preclude such excess). Nick, it seems you are turning Locke into Smith (et al), as your argument is based more on market value than Lockean metaphysics. If I might paraphrase you, the CEO's labor is essentially a moot point, as it is justified primarily (if not exclusively) by the market. But if the market is the ultimate arbiter of worth, this contradicts Locke's metaphysics of labor. Put another way, your argument would actually justify any market scenario, including those wherein the CEO was paid the same or less than the laborers who worked under him--if the market would bear it.
ReplyDeleteThis is not meant to disrupt the conversation, which has been quite good, but simply to give some perspective. It seems that you disagree with each other regarding executive pay. However, it remains unclear if either of you agrees with Locke regarding this scenario, as it remains unclear how/whether Locke's metaphysics could justify such a scenario. (E.g., the relationship between "perceived worth" and "intrinsic worth" of the CEO's labor, which for Locke should be objectively measurable rather than at the mercy of human/market caprice...)
That is basically my argument. In reference to Lockean metaphysics, I am arguing that the CEO example goes against how Locke defines labor. As you said, Locke believed that you could objectively measure labor, so a perceived worth of that labor doesn't make sense.
ReplyDelete