Re: What do workers compete for?

"Matt Timmermans" <mt0000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:FNfoc.19242$dr1.502959@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Mark Monson" <m_monson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:e_eoc.515$U4.380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > First, nobody wants to work.
>
> I do, as do most others.  People like to accomplish things.

Some are lucky enough to enjoy their work.   Most work to make a living
and would
prefer to find an easier way.

>
> > Second, what does skilled have to do with it?
>
> I'll pretend you're joking.

Most jobs don't require special skills yet these jobs are necessary.

>
> > 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.

All locations are not net equivalent after payment of rent.   A men's hat
store
located in downtown Chicago will have substantial rent deducted from
income.   The
same store located at the fringe will have almost no income even if land
is free.


>
> > 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.

Return to capital ( interest) is not the same as increased production
caused by
employment of capital.   In times when capital is abundant, interest rates
drop
regardless of the increase caused by capital.   In times when capital is
scarce,
return to the owners of capital can negotiate for higher interest.


>
> > 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.

Ricardo's simple formula fails when applied to different land use
densities.

Example:

Rent per acre on the poorest farmland is 25 dollars per acre per year.   
The best
farmland in use produces 100 dollars more per acre, so rent on the best
farmland is
125 dollars per acre.

Average output per office worker is say 50,000 dollars per year.    A high
rise
office building on an acre of land holds 1,000 office workers.    Output
per acre is
then 50 million dollars per year.

Applying Ricardo's simple formula means rent for that acre of land is 50
million
minus 25 dollars = $49,999,975.00

In reality rent per acre is not a straight line but a curve from the
fringe to the
dense city center.

>
> > 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.

But there isn't enough production in the first place.   And that is
because non
producing parasites are wrecking the system.  Idle capital and idle
workers result
from idle land denied willing workers who would employ capital.


  The discussion is simpler if we frame it in terms of how the
> produce is divided amongst returns to labor, capital, and land.

The pie has to produced before it can be divided.   When access to land is
overly
expensive, production suffers.
>
> > 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?

Competitive bidding is the best way to decide who gets exclusive rights to
work in
the best places.

When the winning bids are used for public services land exits the
collectable
market.   Land costs fall, more gets produced per labor input, and workers
keep more
of what they produce.

MM
>
>
>