It seems that we need to do what I tried to evade in a little disclaimer in a
previous post: examine and try to define "wages". First, I guess that no one
here wants to think of the money aspect of wage as more than an unstable
form of something more important.
Now, I'll put what some have said on the subject:
Perry: "income = livelihood = life"
Mark: "wage is determined by the worker's consumption-basket"
Tom: "No no! not "determined by. The determination of wage rates is [...]
partially determined by cultural values.
wage is also *affected by* what you term the "consumption-basket", however."
Hallyx: "'wage' is merely a symbolic representation of energy flow. Energy, of
course flows in only one direction: to a less useful state (2nd Law). The higher
the wage the faster the entropic flow."
I'll state again my and Mark's objection to what Hallyx said: While it can be
said that every bit of wages are manifestations of energy flows, if you say that
the flow (KW/h?) is proportional to the "size" of wages, then you depart from the
common sense definiton of wages as stated by Perry. If two wages can buy
the same things in two places where the energy flow embodied is different in
amount (let's say because of more efficient production), the wage will have the
same value IMO. Can we agree on this?
Now, as to the realtion between wage and the consumption basket, the two
things are obviously in relation. But wage as I think of it includes what is
redistributes to other persons than the workers, like his family (not only nuclear
familiy) or people who don't work (elderly, disabled, workless, etc.) through
taxes, insurances, or whatever. Plus, even if you define household
applicances, cars, and houses as consumption, there is usually still a part of
the wage (commonsense defintion) which goes into investment through taxes
which are used in public investment or through personnal savings f.ex. I think
this is a reality of modern economies and that we have to take this into account
even if it wasn't important in the XIXth century.
So the definition of wages I would submit to you is: the purchasing power that is
embodied in the money-wage at the time it is payed and before all taxes and
other deductions. I would personally accept similar defintions (excluding
taxes, f.ex.). With that definition, wages are indeed the result of waste, but not in
a proportional way. With that definition, wage is defined by society as a whole
(which means that it is determined by cultural as well as economic and
ecological factors). With that definition, the relation between wages and the
"consumption basket" is loose while of course important and thus Mark will
maybe not like it.
Anyway, I welcome your attacks on this and hope we can develop a common
vocabulary.
To Tom:
>All human activity is an energy sink. Therefore all human activity requires
>consumption of resources.
This is thermodynamically correct I guess, but as to ressources as they are
useful to human life as we know it, there can be a work of restoration. This work
obviously draws on other ressources, but it can be positive on balance,
notably if mostly renewables are consumed. Imagine subsistence farmers in a
desertifying region planting trees f.ex.
To Hallyx:
>And I'm being quite
>literal when I say that this energy is 'spent.' More accurately, it is wasted
>--- never to be used again.
Generally you're right, but in the case of renewables, while that energy is
indeed wasted, more energy of the same kind reemerges for very long period
of times.
>We all recognise that classical economists are in ignorance or denial of the
>2nd Law. [...] The idea that, "All human
>activity is an energy sink. Therefore all human activity requires consumption
>of resources." Is barely alluded to in their theories
You seem to be in disagreement with your friend Tom on that issue.
>"Ideology is a form of denial, a denial of reality. It is a profound form of
>na�vet�."
>--- John Ralston Saul
I've already told you what I think of naivete: It can be good... as long as it
doesn't transform itself in stubborn righteousness of course.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
