Script said:
I think you simply have different notions of 'labour'. Someone working as a copywriter in an ad agency doesn't really work with his 'hands' either -- apart from typing and drinking coffee maybe. Swap the word 'labour' for 'work' (someone spending time on doing something). Tertiary industry. Coming up with ideas is doing something. And having the responsibility for employees too is doing something. OTOH, someone could be a 'thinker' (i.e. not using their 'hands', in the literal sense) and still be a slave to the 'capital' holders. It's just a question of evaluation.
I think what might confuse people, even those on "the left" in some cases, is exactly what you point out, that labor isn't confined to working with one's hands - literally - or using a machine in an automobile factory. But the thing is that the problems pointed out by Socialist and Anarchist thinkers of the 1800's for example remain. The issue isn't working with one's hands versus not, it's just that the problem fell more neatly along those lines a hundred years ago. But if we look at it today the same issue remains even if we "update" the notion of what labor is. It's still an issue of the laborer versus the owner, and the classes those two possibilities create. Similarly the notion of "the means of production" have changed as well, from just being a machine and factory to including computers and datacenters etc.
In other words the copywriter in the ad agency is as you point out a worker, albeit not in the "standing next to a machine" sense of the word. So the 'problem' remains: That worker creates the value - the wealth if you will - and then the owner takes it and gives back only part of that value to the creator. That's the problem.
It should also be pointed out I think that someone who has responsibility for others, a manager or whatever you want to call it, is also performing labor which deserves to be compensated. But again, that doesn't negate the stark contrast between owners and workers. Some people love to point out how a small-business owner works incredibly hard and with his only 10 employees or whatever should get compensated just like they should. Well, few socialists disagree with that notion, of course he should be compensated - for the labor performed - not for the ownership. That's the difference. Pro-capitalists want people to be compensated based on ownership and I think most true socialists don't.
[
quasi-digression: It is an interesting example you give though because advertising is a job that is needed in a for-profit capitalist market. However, in a Socialist structure where this arguably wouldn't be needed this person's skills could be put to use for something else. To put it a bit differently; some of the work done in our Capitalist societies serve the system itself rather than people. You need advertising because you need to win on the market, but that market is a function of the system, not of life. It's in principle a bit like expanding legislation, literally by adding thousands of laws, which then necessitates lawyers. But these lawyers serve the system. Get rid of laws and you don't need lawyers (I'm not advocating that necessarily). Likewise this large sector, advertising, along with the financial sector, are completely reliant on the system chosen. So as far as "efficiency" goes the value in those segments, assuming it's really true wealth, is just a waste unless one can prove how they actually produce something of intrinsic value as opposed to something of value only to the system in which they exist. All these bankers and ad people could do things of greater value instead.]
Script said:
To be polemic, in general, the world values the work of a banker higher than that of a baker.
I disagree with that characterization. Now, the reason I disagree is because of how you express yourself, so as I explain my disagreement you may actually agree with me. But it's still important to point it out because words have meaning and should be used with care. In this case I think phrasing it the way you do only ends up misleading people into viewing the current state of affairs incorrectly.
When I go buy toothpaste I look at contents, flavors, listen to recommendations etc. But it's a fairly "shallow" evaluation
of the product. Eventually I find something I like and most likely stick with it. Same with milk, socks, whatever. So, the question to ask here is "How many people make product purchases only after they have
in depth considered how the money they just spent is used throughout the entire 'chain'?" In other words, when I buy a Colgate toothpaste, do I really know how the money I just spent is allocated in society? Do I know who owns Colgate and takes its profits? Do I know how those profits are allocated?
Since the answer is "no" it's my proposition that "the world" by and large doesn't value work at all, it just consumes goods and services. The "value" you speak of is just the accumulation / consolidation of wealth (money) as a function of that consumption. It doesn't matter if it's toothpaste, MS Windows or checking accounts; people consume and the profits are pooled in certain ways. But most of the time people don't "vote with their wallets", because they don't know what they're voting for. They're just spending their money. Think of it this way: There's every now and then a big backlash against a company for having engaged in questionable behavior - well, why didn't people research this on their own before buying? Think of Foxconn's factories in Asia where employees jumped to their deaths... People still bought iPhones etc making Apple a giant. Was that "voting"? Was it placing a "value" on labor? It probably was only an expression of "I want this. I am willing to pay for it." and nothing else.
Suppose you let people choose how valuable a type of labor is by selecting it and dragging it above/below other types of labor using a computer. They'd be given time to think, given information, and no indoctrination. If they get the peace and quiet to think about it, how many will truly feel that the value of the work of a nurse or firefighter for example is below that of a banker? I suspect very few. But eveyrone needs a checking account and so this carefully regulated oligopoly is bound to get money from this individual regardless of whether or not a banker is "really worth" X money.
[quasi-digression #2: It's interesting that you chose banker, in conjunction with the premise of John's that we need a higher GDP. The banking system in the US "prints the money" and have a monopoloy on that. So a growing economy ensures a profit for that industry. As a sector/industry it can't really fail.]
Script said:
I have suggested elsewhere that any capital gains should be taxed like income (can't change current contracts, but could implement for the future).
Script said:
I wouldn't want to eliminate competition. We need that as a motor.
I don't agree with the above in the context you put it. I think there are a great deal of ways to be compensated which in turn perpetuates production and innovation. Now, obviously I agree that competition is part of those incentives, but the reward from competition doesn't actually have to be monetary. If you've evern played ping-pong with friends, or whatever sport, you've probably noticed that some of them are inherently competitive, and they'll try to win even with nothing on the line. Like, literally nothing to gain from it other than the sensation of winning. I think that if this is true with no tangible gains to follow it must certainly be true when tangible gains
are to be found. So, I would absolutely say that you can have competition that is friendly and where the end result is coming up with X before others do, and the reward isn't just recognition and fame but also that which you created.
In addition to competition specifically there's of course the desire to do labor just by virtue of being human, or to make things more efficient so that we can work less, or to simply increase the quality of life. There are plenty of motivations for doing labor.
Every country has (and should have) enough potential to quickly find replacement.
