Why didn't free labor supplant wage labor?

Why didn't free labor supplant wage labor?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It already is free, capitalism is zero sum.
    A pays b 100, b pays a 99, a pays b 98 etc. Capitalism is zero sum and the stock market loses to inflation.
    The sum in capitalism is the fact that government forces capitalism to exist.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wages are a leftover, a undesired result of production.
      The code of hamurrabi guaranteed four tons of corn per year to a farmer.
      A farmer works an acre. The acre yields about 1 ton of crop a year.
      The only way you're getting 4 tons is if you're counting all the chaff and waste from production. If you look at historical wages they make no sense.
      In very good farmland there's 10 people per square mile so 50 tons per acre. Most of this is wasted so 25 tons.
      The farmland is going to have 10x higher density so it comes to 2.5 tons per person. And consider that those are ideal conditions, the actual is going to be a ton.
      The California gold rush created gold. Rome had 200 tons. Consider the 100 million supposed population.
      That's 2 grams per capita. Let's use a monetary velocity of 1.
      Rome had a average wage of 1000 grams per year. This is obviously impossible.
      All economic history before 1850 was fake. California started in 1842. That's the same year the nyse had a real building. When California began producing gold this created an economy based on land speculation and railroads which led to capitalism. Netherlands had no stock building until 1893.
      Wages are a ratio between material quantities. The monetary velocity is the limiting factor.
      In 1850 the gold supply was 50x Rome with 10x population. This is 10 grams of gold per person. In one day a person walks about a mile, which is the distance to another person. This limits the monetary velocity to 3 kg of gold per year. As density increases bureaucracy reduces the velocity.
      This would limit wages to $2000 in that time. This is what wages actually were in New England.
      As you can see wages are determined by physical quantities of gold being moved around, or waste in agriculture, rather than value. It's not about work, it's just ability to move money.
      These wages were basically unchanged for all of history.

      hi gdp = tourism schizo

      also gold's value can change, the amount of wheat you can buy with an ounce of gold varies, so everything you've said is bullshit

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't change, gold wages are the ratio between the walking distance and gold per worker by definition.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >gold wages are the ratio between the walking distance and gold per worker by definition
          Where did you get this definition? Also did you get molested again by that troony cop?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't change, gold wages are the ratio between the walking distance and gold per worker by definition.

      i am intrigued , tell me more

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was all there was to tell, but I'll continue anyway.
        Wages are really easy to define. They're just an arbitrary value set by regulations. There was a brief time between 1850 and 1900 when a market existed, but it was just the union wages being recorded. In general if you read anything from economic history it applies to a small share of the population in union agreements. The balance sheets are bank loans and meaningless fake income. In the 20s you could show a store card and get everything free. Nobody ever counted cash or memorized thousands of prices. Decimal prices were made in 1971 and any data before that is trash and everything was free.
        In the past retail stores were like tech startups. People paid for luxuries or important things, you didn't pay for groceries like today. They were glad to have you in the store, they didn't care about money. Prices and wages didn't exist.
        Likewise there was never a significant part of the population that stock traded or any way to spend wages. Wages didn't exist, my mom got a 10k loan to leave the house for zero interest. Everything was free, anyone could do anything. After the dotcom crash or so they required you to actually pay.
        If you read stock prices before the 80s they move 1 cent every few days. There's a reason why there's no stock data and its because it didn't exist. Prices were meaningless before electronic trading was introduced in 1983 and prices were decimal in 1994. As late as 1994 you lost a ton of money just on rounding error. Prices were meaningless.
        There were a handful of mutual funds in 1930. Most of these died in the crash. The stock market recovered around 1950 (with massive losses in real terms it never regained even today) and today closed end mutual funds are limited to a few commodity etfs and trust funds.
        The open ended mutual fund industry, meaning you can trade the shares outside a trust fund, led to the index fund industry. All this happened after the fifties.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >In the 20s you could show a store card and get everything free. Nobody ever counted cash or memorized thousands of prices.
          what does this mean? people didn't buy things back then?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. You could go to a store and steal anything.
            As late as the 90s my parents went to toys R us, and the toys were free. Nobody cares about anything.
            There were no credit scores. There was store credit, but no small claims courts, and no way to sue for debt. There was no reason to pay anything and nobody did.
            It takes a minute to count cash. There are 100,000 people per store in America. 1% shop. It's mathematically impossible anyone memorized the 50,000 SKU in a store, counted cash, and used cash. Everything was free before the 60s when they got electronics.
            Everything was free in the past. Every one on earth is severely mentally moronic. Every poster on IQfy needs to be sent to the gas chamber urgently.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wages are a leftover, a undesired result of production.
    The code of hamurrabi guaranteed four tons of corn per year to a farmer.
    A farmer works an acre. The acre yields about 1 ton of crop a year.
    The only way you're getting 4 tons is if you're counting all the chaff and waste from production. If you look at historical wages they make no sense.
    In very good farmland there's 10 people per square mile so 50 tons per acre. Most of this is wasted so 25 tons.
    The farmland is going to have 10x higher density so it comes to 2.5 tons per person. And consider that those are ideal conditions, the actual is going to be a ton.
    The California gold rush created gold. Rome had 200 tons. Consider the 100 million supposed population.
    That's 2 grams per capita. Let's use a monetary velocity of 1.
    Rome had a average wage of 1000 grams per year. This is obviously impossible.
    All economic history before 1850 was fake. California started in 1842. That's the same year the nyse had a real building. When California began producing gold this created an economy based on land speculation and railroads which led to capitalism. Netherlands had no stock building until 1893.
    Wages are a ratio between material quantities. The monetary velocity is the limiting factor.
    In 1850 the gold supply was 50x Rome with 10x population. This is 10 grams of gold per person. In one day a person walks about a mile, which is the distance to another person. This limits the monetary velocity to 3 kg of gold per year. As density increases bureaucracy reduces the velocity.
    This would limit wages to $2000 in that time. This is what wages actually were in New England.
    As you can see wages are determined by physical quantities of gold being moved around, or waste in agriculture, rather than value. It's not about work, it's just ability to move money.
    These wages were basically unchanged for all of history.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because of the benefits of the division of labor.
    Some people are better off by focusing on just the technical side of the task, some have better general vision and managerial skills; others still are fairly competent at both.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Division of labor is of course garbage.
      But you'll continue believing it because, after all, his is a moron board.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most slaves weren’t purchased and slaves weren’t given food they farmed subsistence crops in their free time

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong jidf. The south imported food and capitalism is literally morons.

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wage growth is fundamentally based on the capital share. This isn't Marxist capitalism as they understand it. It's better thought of as the debt collection share, or money lost to bureaucracy outside of the wage system.
    In the 90s the unbanked share went 16 to 8%. In 1920 1% of people had a bank account. In 1720 nobody did.
    1920 was approximately when people were paid wages at all. The depression and ww2 happened, then everything was determined by unions. Unions peaked in 1947 with right to work laws. They declined rapidly after American peak oil in 1971.
    All of the job growth since 1971 has been in retail, finance and healthcare. Finance is a rent seeking behavior based on mortgages. Healthcare is government. Retail is the only area that had growth, and diners peaked around 1950 and Walmart was 1% of its present size in 1970. It was growing 20% a year. Around 1980 all retail growth was coming from Walmart and big box stores. In 1970 there was less, but walgreens was already a major thing.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Continuing my post.
    Walgreens is anti union, even though it was a major employer in the time unions existed.
    In 1970 walgreens paid 5000 a year. This was 1.5x the minimum wage. Wage growth was stagnant afterwards.
    In 2000 the first year data is available, walgreens was paying the minimum wage. Today it pays close to the minimum wage In California. As you can see wages are decided by regulations, they have no actual meaning.
    Capitalism is zero sum. There's no reason to pay wages, there's no reason to use anything besides slave labor.
    So to answer the question, wages are npc behavior. There's no actual reason to use labor at all. Everything is done for free. Employees are already slaves paid at a loss.
    Historically unions created wages. Before then it was just a mechanical function of specie transport.
    Because fiat is now used and unions are dead, there's absolutely nothing deciding wages, it's just regulation.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    In 1800 the US stock market was about a billion dollars. The total government debt was a similar value. There were only a few dozen public companies- most of them scams, a few that were banks that only invested all their money back into government debt. If you read any stock market from the past, it was just a way to buy banks that invested in government debt. Government debt was the only thing to trade, besides rail pyramid schemes.
    The 1920s boom was a failure and afterwards the stock market fell back to where it was. The private financial system in the early 20th century was truly insignificant and federal debt was the bulk of the market.
    The time when wages were high and good was when the stock market was destroyed so income went there. When the market goes up, this inflates banking assets, which allows banks to hire. It also allows them to extend health insurance which helps those markets. It is a boom for the oil industry as the prices go up.
    It's still zero sum as whatever money you get from these prices has to be returned, through taxes or interest, and income never rises to the point profit occurs because then the consumer spending would have to increase and raise debt, pushing down the affordable interest rate. This is a "financial crisis".
    Manufacturing is hurt when prices increase as all the money goes to materials. In fact, the only reason manufacturing loses money in recessions is unions- if they fired people the profit would increase. This would of course be a loss to the union as capitalism is zero sum.
    As you can see the entire economy is linked through commodity prices and the market pays itself, and is zero sum overall, with any profit accruing to land.
    In any case as I said wages were high in the depression as the stock market went down. The interest rate is really an attention span. For one thing humans cycle their neurons in 20 years so interest is five percent. For another thing that's the rate it was growing. 1870 when banking was set up,

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    And bankruptcy law passed, this was when interest was set. Gold rush was 1850 and production was flat so interest became 5%.
    Inflation was the same in the gold standard it was today- pol is a moron board and uses other statistics. The inflation rate has always been 5% both for the neural reasons I gave and because that was the growth rate of the metal supply when capitalism began.
    This interest happens anyway from population growth. If population is growing a few percent then banks issue mortgages in proportion, and some interest to cover inflation. They don't even cover risk. Mortgages are done at a loss in real terms. Banks issue them because a boomer walks in and wants a house, and a minimum wage loan officer out of high school hits a button to create a million dollars. Banks have no internal controls. Capitalism is literally morons.
    The federal reserve is the most childish thing ever decised- its a toddler hitting a button to create money. Misc is a moron board and has a complex theory. In reality banking is the most immature and mindless thing that ever existed, itsnjust someone hitting a button at a arbitrary rate, for no reason but to increase a number. It's israeli autism.
    There is no Cambridge capital controversy, there is nothing setting wages or prices. Wages are set by regulations in an arbitrary way. Capital return is the mundane factors I mentioned. Technically population growth causes mortgages to issue, but the point is home prices grow at some arbitrary rate, and when they do for some doubling time, the economy raises the rate until it runs into a problem.
    Peak oil prevented capitalism from collapsing. If resources were free then everything would go to infinity immediately and be limited by people's ability to hit buttons, then it would collapse. There is nothing in Capitalism, it is just a toddler hitting a button to create money, then a problem happens and it collapses.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who was the SCOTUS Justice who argued (in private, not in a case), that wage labour is bad.

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry your thread got completely derailed by a schizophrenic OP, it seemed interesting.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because slaves don't spend all that much money, so a paid employee grows the economy just by surviving.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    i know im a moron, but Lincoln literally said
    >hire a guy and pay him
    so what are you all on about and what is free labor? and how does it differ from wage labor?
    free labor is slavery, thats not what the quote was saying
    help a midwit out4s8aa2

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what are you all on about
      commies whining that they have to work and pay for things

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *