í Assignments

In Chapter two of Karl Marx’s ”Wage Labour and Capital,” Marx distinguishes the commodities the weaver uses to that of the finished cloth. The weaver is hired by the capitalist to make cloth; in return the capitalist pays the weaver for the work that was done to make the cloth. The capitalist supplies the weaver with all the required materials to make the cloth including the yarn, the raw material, the loom, and the instrument of labor all to produce the final product so in return he can then sell the cloth and make his profit. Being that the capitalist has purchased these commodities in order to produce a higher valuable commodity with money he already has on hand, the weaver doesn’t benefit from the sale of the cloth. To the capitalist, the waver’s labor power is just another commodity like the raw material and instrument that are needed for the production of the cloth. According to Marx, the weaver should not be concerned about if the cloth he made was sold for a profit because he was already paid his wage for the job he was hired to do. Anything that was made off his job belongs solely to the capitalist who hired the weaver. Sometimes the cloth can be sold for a significant amount or sometimes not at all, as a result the labor power the weaver has already provided for the production of the cloth, should not affect his wages.

Marx’s “Wage Labour and Capital” also gives us the example of how labor power wasn’t always a product that could be bought or sold. In the cases of the slaves and the serfs, due to the fact they were seen as property, the labor power that they provided was free. This is because they were forced into doing the labor. And because the slaves were seen as property, the labor power was no longer the highly sought out commodity, the slave itself turned into the commodity. In a similar aspect, the serfs were also forced into working on the land of the kings and the lords. Neither the slave nor the serf received wages for their labor. The ones to profit from their labor power commodity were the slave owners and the lords of the land.

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.

In his example of the weaver, Marx showcases how a capitalist buys the labor-power of a weaver, the loom, and the yarn used to make cloth. All three are used to make a product and therefore all three are equal commodities.  The weaver, then, does not get a share of the price of the product, but gets paid for his labor-power by wages (Marx, p.2).  His labor-power is what he owns and can sell to a capitalist for wages in order to live (Marx, p.2).

Once the idea of labor-power is established, Marx then goes on to state that putting labor-power into action, or working, is how one’s life activities are expressed (Marx, p.2). Working, or labor-activity, must be sold to a capitalist in order for a worker to maintain his existence.  When one works, as a weaver for example, his product is not what he produces for himself.  A weaver looms yarn and produces cloth, which is the product.  The cloth will be turned into another item, a dress, a blanket, etc. (Marx, p.3).  But the weaver does not keep the cloth, nor the finished product of the dress or blanket.  He only gets to keep the wages paid by the capitalist who hired him (Marx, p.2).

Since the worker only gets to keep the wages the capitalist pays him to produce that certain commodity, there is this personal distance between the worker and the commodity they produce, and worker may feel alienated from it. The worker may begin to put less effort into the commodity, compromising its quality.  The worker could also not be concerned with their efficiency in making the commodity, especially if they are getting paid hourly wages.  Not only could this alienation of the worker from the commodity cause the one’s work ethic to decline, it could also cause his happiness to decline.  If he is only going to work to produce a commodity that he has no real connection with or ownership of, this may cause lack of pride and feeling of purpose.  The worker could begin to feel as though he is living just to work so he can survive and not enjoy the time he spends here.  Since the worker needs the wages paid to him by capitalists, it may become clear to him that he belongs to the entire capitalist class, causing even greater alienation and insecurity in his life (Marx, p.3).

Capitalism as we all know is about, private ownership, competition, profit and rapid growth. In the article, “What are Wages”, Karl Marx says that capitalism is presented as a “natural system” and it forces beyond human control. I completely agree with this statement because we labor to pursue our own needs. We have to do it because society has in-bedded in our brains and in the system that we “cant do anything on our own. It is “supply and demand, they demand and we supply, and this to me is unstoppable because its “considered” and “good thing” because it generates wealth. It increases the market, the profit and it changes the society. When I think of capitalism, I think about Starbucks. What does Starbucks have? I believe  when Starbucks started it was about coffee and for coffee drinkers. Starbucks is capitalism, it grows; it started off small, it started with 1 vision and now it is everywhere. According to Karl Marx, In capitalism it means “money” and that is the highest stage of human development, “Money means power. We, the people, advance is the participation and it goes to the division of labor and it becomes oppressive. The working class is always exploited and we will only survive as long as we let it. This is what Karl Marx is explaining that the cost of production is the labour that we have to keep investing in the things we already have. For example the machine that cost 1,000 shillings, you have to keep adding on to it, in order to be able to replace it when its worn out.

The article by Rank, Hirshil and Roster “From High Hopes to Low Wages”, Its like a combination of everything like welfare, and inflation. He explains how people are willing to take a job that pays them less than what it should be getting paid, then the employer will find more people that are willing to take that low paying job. The employer is okay with paying you less more because it becomes convenient for them. The more we get paid the higher the living goes. I really like this quote that Karl Marx says, “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.” Its the truth, we are our own destruction.

Marielis Rosado
September 21, 2016
SOC 32014
Prof. Elizabeth Bullock
What are wages?
In the reading, “What are wages? How are they determined?” by Karl Marx he talks about what he considers wages to be. He mentioned that wages are an exchange of labor power for a set amount of money that will then bring those worker commodities. As he continued in the reading he said, that money is able to be exchange to provide commodity, which means that it has a price or a cost. This could be taken as that wages equals price of labor. Karl Marx then touched based on a weaver that works for the capitalist and is given the yarn and the loom to produce the cloth. Marx says that the weaver only gets paid for the labor power, that whether the cloth sells at a higher or lower price than the weaver wage it is not the weaver’s problem. That even if the cloth does not get sold at all it is not the weaver’s problem once more, because the weaver was paid for producing that cloth only. He then compared the weaver to the loom, as he mentioned that the worker was just a tool part of that production but not the final result which is the cloth. So no matter what happens to that cloth, the weaver will still get paid for the amount of money he agreed to produce the product. Since the weaver works for the capitalist, the owner or I should say the capitalist provides the weaver with the required products to produce which in this case are the yarn and the loom, so the weaver does not have to spend their money on those products since they come with the job. If the weaver would have to buy these products, the yarn and the loom, to be able to make the cloth then he would not have the same amount of wage he gets from the capitalist as being a worker. Because the weaver would have to buy these products to produce plus also counting his labor power to make the cloth, that takes away from his wage and time which provides him with commodity. Workers sell their labor power to the capitalist to be able to live, which is their commodity. Workers will produce a product, but in reality Karl explained that what they are really producing is their wages and commodity, this is also the case for the weaver worker.

Marielis Rosado
September 18, 2016
SOC 32014
Productive & Unproductive Labor
In “The Making of the Working class”, by Harry Braveman, he talks about unproductive and productive labor. As it was hard to understand what the difference is between both, he goes in details about it. Productive and unproductive labor is not based on the business, career, or performance but it is based on the labor that it produces and when their productivity of labor remains stable or unstable throughout the process. Those traits define productive and unproductive labor. Productive labor is very much needed for any society, as it is the type of labor that will bring more opportunities and positive outcomes to any society.
As mentioned in the passage, productive labor could be those jobs that most people do not consider productive due to their performance. Jobs like clerical work and transportation are part of productive labor. Part of productive labor is useful objects, useful values and useful services. These are important for the production or that type of labor to remain being needed. Productive labor is considered productive because the business only continues to rise very much. Due to it continuous rising in labor these business are able to offer more job opportunities.
I was surprised to see what some of the unproductive labor are. One of the unproductive labors is construction. After reading the passage I was able to understand why construction would be part of unproductive labor. Construction jobs is not always steady, today you might have a lot of work but then in a week there might not be any projects to need workers to finish the job. Unproductive labors are labors that keep rising and declining. Unproductive labor is unsteady jobs due to the rising and declining of the labor, due to this it causes a lot of workers to get terminated. Many workers end up unemployed due to these unproductive labors; the unemployed rates keep rising and declining.
The differences between both productive and unproductive labor is big, as productive labor is the type of job you can count on for producing and improving for both the individual and the business itself. Productive labor has more opportunities and as mentioned above it has nothing to do with the career. It was surprising to see that there are unproductive labors in every neighborhood which many of us do not consider unproductive. As we all would just like productive labor in our neighborhood I believe both, productive and unproductive labor, go hand in hand.

Due Sunday, September 25th, by midnight. Word count: 400 words. Please note that you will not receive full credit if your assignment includes quotes. Make sure everything is in your own words. If you paraphrase (which I encourage you to do) make sure to include the proper citation.

In his writing on wage-labor, Marx argues that wages “are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself.” From the text, use the example of the weaver that Marx points to in order to explain how he is characterizing the relationship of labor activity to the commodity that is produced.