å Sunday, September 25th, 2016

Karl Marx begins to define what wages are in this weeks’ piece. Marx describes the relationship between wages and labor in the ideals of work; as well as how the market depends on its relationship. He begins to identify that wages are monies paid by capitalists to people who provide labor. The monies paid to the laborers are in relationship to the amount of work done or the amount of time to complete the work. Therefore, Marx argues that capitalist buy labor power by the amount of time spent on work. In other words, time is what capitalist buy. They buy the time that laborers provide in the realm of work. He calls the time that workers provide as labor power and informs us that this is the commodity that capitalists are interested in. As he states in his piece, Marx describes that the term “wages” is just a special name for the price of labor.

Paying laborers for their time according to Marx is the way capitalist tend to spread the use of their commodities. In other words, when workers are paid for their time, capitalist can use that time paid to have workers work in other areas or on other products capitalist produce. In this ideal, capitalist maximize the overall use of their commodities with time paid to workers. Within the context of time for example, you can have a worker work on 3-4 tasks rather than have them work on 1 given task for a set amount of time. Marx names this the exchange value of labor. The commodity that is produced then has a price attached to it. The price is usually the money that is exchanged for the exchange value of labor. So in summary, Workers sell their time, to work on products for employers and not gain profit or capital for this.

Interestingly enough, Marx argues that a worker’s commodity is his labor. He states that workers sell their labor throughout their life in order to live. He also states that the laborer should know that his labor represents wages. He manages to provide his ability to work in order to obtain all the necessities to live by way of earning wages. This relationship to life becomes one that depends on wages in order to live.

After reading this piece by Marx, I tend to think of how time is such a factor in the ability to earn wages. Today, we see it constructed in our own labor laws and policies. The terms part-time, full-time, temporary and salary are all based on the time in which wages are dispensed. None are determined by production, only time. I wonder what would happen if laborers were paid for the amount of production they produce over time? If we workers would gain some financial ground if time was not the only determining factor of wage. I guess we would all then be capitalist. Interesting.

Essentially anything that holds a trade-value is considered a commodity. Commodities are traded through exchanges. These exchanges are traded through future contracts. Contracts obligate Capital to buy or sell their commodities at a predetermined price on a future date.  These commodities are then priced based on the market value; which is the futures market price of that commodity. Simply the equity of these commodities revolves around the supply and demand.

Marx uses the example of the weaver to illustrate this relation between labor activity and the purchased commodities. Capital supplies the raw materials and facility and hires the weaver as an employee. The weaver applies himself to his work and then turns the raw materials given into cloth. The employer then takes the produced product and sells it for the given predetermined market value, in this case, twenty shillings. The market value of the produced goods does not determine the wage for the employee; the weaver. The weaver agreed and received their earnings prior to the full production, and prior to the sale of the goods. The employee has already received their wages from the money on hand, and not by the market value of their production.

In many cases, a skilled worker is directed to be employed by capital. Whether he does not possess the money on hand to purchase the materials to create his cloth or he has the money and produces the materials but has no clientele or he was unable to produce any profit from the selling of his product. Thus capital purchases the weavers labored power, just like they have purchased their raw materials of yarn and the equipment of loom. After these purchases have been made comes the entitled ownership. The belonging of the labored powered weaver as well as the necessary materials of production of the cloth; is of Capital. The newly employed weaver is now part of the instruments of labor sharing the same playing field as the raw materials of yarn and the equipment of loom. In this respect, he has no share in the cloth produced or the price.

The hours spent weaving does not justify his life. The weavers’ life only then starts after receiving his labor earned wages. In theory, the Capitals commodity (the weaver) sells his ability to work in return for wages. These wages are then used to purchase even more commodities like food and electricity. This is done for mere survival.

Marien Burgos

Marx characterizes the relationship of labor activity to the commodity that is produced. He uses the example of the weaver to explain how capitalism is dependent on wage and labor for the working class. Also how businesses are motivated by the needs and wants of the bargainer and the owners of businesses and the production of labor belong to the capitalists. Marx mentions that sense the capitalist buys the supplies and the labor from the worker,the worker will receive his wages for the work he produced, and whether the capitalist sales his merchandise the worker would still get paid for his labor. Because the capitalist buys the yarn and loom the wages are not consider part of the shares of the worker in the exchanged in market. He considers the capitalist the higher class because this class uses their financial gain, the workers labor and extra product to their advantage.
The school were I work at is the perfect example, I started working their 2008. The school opened with only two classrooms because the owner didn’t have enough money for a bigger space but in that area there were no schools before we opened. The supplies and demand started growing. Now the owner of the school opened another school but the salaries of the teachers haven’t grown as much as the business has. As Marx mentions in (p.2) it is possible that the seller sells his merchandised for a very good profit but that doesn’t concern the worker. This is how the capitalist continues to be at the top of the pyramid.
In “The making of the U.S. working class” Braverman mentions in (P.32) that in this society the inverted pyramid is taking place because the productive labor is getting narrower and the workers are driven to produce a greater product. Because of the Capitalist system industries who don’t produce anything themselves are thriving. All this is in connection with what Marx explains,that the working class is always at the bottom of the pyramid and this class is always exploited but is the only way to survive.
As explained above the worker exchanges his commodity labor power in exchange of money. And long before the merchandised is fully produced the worker has received his wages. The capitalist owns the product and the labor. Also Marx considers the capitalist the higher class because they use the gains and the workers labor in their favor. In the end this is the reason why the rich continue to get richer and the working class continues to be working class.

In Karl Marx piece on Wage Labor and Capital, he uses the weaver as an example to talk about the relationship of labor activity to a commodity. He was showing the relationship between supply and demand. He shows the chain of events in which the capitalist supplies the raw materials for the worker to make a product then that finish product is returned to the capitalist to be sold for x amount of money but none of that money belongs to the worker that makes that product. He is paid a set price for his work and none of the profits from the finish product belongs to the worker.  There is no true or intimate connection between that worker and the merchandise in which they produce because they are not producing it for themselves they were hired by a corporation to produce a certain number of goods at a specific time at a set price. So the love and attention that they would normally put into it if that product represents them is not there.

For example, Footlocker they are just the means in which the shoes are distributed but they have factories where they hire workers to make these shoes for cheap then bring them to America and sells them for hundreds of dollars but the workers in the factory already have a set price for their wage that they are being paid none of the money that they make off the shoes sold in the stores belong to these workers.  The worker only receives the amount of money he or she agreed to work for upon hire. As we can see today some products that are made in China are worth staying in china due to the way they were made they weren’t built to last long.

According to Marx labour power is the commodity that the worker sells to the boss and the reason is to make a living so the relationship he’s trying to make between commodity and wage labor is that the worker himself sells his commodity for a price so wages are a part of the commodity which means that wages create commodities. Marx said that wages are the already existing part of commodities. He gave an example where he spoke about slavery and how those workers did not sell their labor to the capitalist but they were already sold for a price. This shows that labour did not always a commodity and it was not always paid for it was also free.