Re: What do workers compete for?

"Mark Monson" <m_monson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e_eoc.515$U4.380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> First, nobody want to work.

I do, as do most others.  People like to accomplish things.

> Second, what does skilled have to do with it?

I'll pretend you're joking.

> And how does somebody join himself to the required land and capital?

Rent and borrow, if need be.

> Capital can be produced, land can't.   The quantity of land is fixed.

But it isn't all used.  You can buy lots of fine land in Saskatchewan,
real
cheap.

> More im****tantly, certain locations offer great advantages that have
nothing
> to do with the improvements on those sites.

Those advantages are negated by rent.

> Capitalists are not after
> reasonable returns but the highest returns they can get for lending
capital.   The
> maximum return is set by competition among capitalists.

No it's not.  The maximum return is determined by chance and skill.  I'm
not
sure what sets the average return, but I'm quite certain that it's tracked
by interest rates.

> Land owners also try to get as much as the traffic will bear.   But
unlike
> capitalists, land owners have a monopoly bargaining position.

No again.  Rent on a piece of land is equivalent to the advantage that
land
provides over the poorest land in use.  Land owners are in no position to
demand more than that, because renters can always move to Saskatchewan if
need be.

> The return to land ( rent ) therefore is not set by "reasonable" levels
but by
> monopoly.    Workers bargaining position vis a vis land is very poor
compared to
> land owners.  Workers with no other income will starve without immediate
use of land
> while landowners can typically hold out much longer before accepting a
tenant.

> > But if wages are held down by competition among workers, then what,
exactly,
> > do they compete for?  Capital isn't scarce, and land isn't scarce, so
how
> > can jobs be scarce?
>
> Good locations are always scarce.   But the land monopoly system we have
makes land
> artificially scarce.

Hmmm... You and Roy both hold that land is scarce.  You would need to
account for Saskatchewan before I'd buy that.

> > Why would a company decline to hire someone who can
> > produce in excess of his compensation and the other costs associated
with
> > his employment?
>
> Workers are also consumers.   Demand for produced goods and services is
held down by
> low wages.

And supply is increased.  After accounting for both sides, it looks to me
like production=consumption, regardless of what a dollar is worth at any
given time.  The discussion is simpler if we frame it in terms of how the
produce is divided amongst returns to labor, capital, and land.

> Where land is open to all on equal terms, wages rise to the full reward
> of labor and consumers have purchasing power to buy goods.

Clarify that for me -- do you mean that I'm supposed to let hippies smoke
up
in my shop while I'm trying to work, and that this will increase my
productivity?  Or will workers have knife fights to decide who gets
exclusive rights to work in the best places?