Although most of us will agree with that statement, everyone measures work in a different way.
I am going by the basis of the amount of labor time with the addition of the stress of the job and the like.
You are measuring work by time. If a doctor works 5 hours, and a janitor works 5 hours, they should both gain 5 hours worth of needs, such as 5 hours worth of crops (I don't know how you would measure this), or a desk that took up to 5 hours to make (which people could slack off and make their 4 hour jobs take 6 hours to gain more needs, if they were crooked).
I do agree that a doctor's 5 hours are worth more than a janitor. However, what drives wages in a capitalist economy is the chaos of the market with the factors of minimum wage, reserve of labor (more workers being able to do a job decreases wages), etc.
So yes, janitors in a capitalist economy do get paid less. But not as a direct result of that their job is worth less than a doctors. Its not as if we have a chart that compares the stress of everyone's job and uses some mathematical equation to figure out the wage of each occupation.
Their wages are rather determined by the availability of their job. So in poorer countries where unskilled workers abundant, $0.30/hr is an "adequate" wage.
If you have a farmer who plants corn by hand and farms only 1 acre all day, and you have a farmer who uses machinery to farm 10 acres in the same amount of time, should they really be payed the same when it takes them both the same amount of time to farm their crops?
By moral means and fairness, yes actually. Is it the poorer's farmer's job that he is not able to use machinery? Its rather harder to farm by hand then use machine. The products then come from not the farmer's labor but the machines.
However, this scenario only applies to a capitalist system where the means of production (the machinery) is owned by the single individual who alone is able to harness the power of it. If both farmers owned the machinery then it would only be fair if both were paid accordingly to their labor time and not the product of their labor.
This analogy as a whole creates a false basis of capitalism. Capitalism here is reduced merely to "One guy owns a machinery, the other doesn't" so logically itself such an argument is fallacious.
In the capitalist world, this unfair advantage is accepted, as long as the workers being underpaid, are still making enough money to buy food, clothes, and home, along with entertainment. As long as the worker is making enough money to be happy, they don't care if they are being underpaid.
True, however, we can clearly the result of the inequality it breeds. While the middle class of America is able to make $30 an hour, it can turn its head away from the exploitation.
But a problem still rises. It gives the rise to the elite super rich. It then becomes a class dominated system, where nearly a few individuals(relatively few to the billions of the population) control everything. The media, the news, and even the government.
It also creates poverty outside its borders through globalization.
If a worker is unhappy, he must find a new job, work harder/more, or revolt against the company through methods of forming a strike or going to the government and forcing the company to pay their workers better. This is basically impossible for one man to do. To accomplish such tasks, strong leaders must be chosen. That's the flaw, we American's have **** tastes in leaders. Mainly because the government offers us very few options to choose from. This isn't necessarily the fault of the capitalist system, because changing the way leaders are picked or figuring out a way better leaders can be chosen won't necessarily change capitalism to socialism, communism, etc.
I think you are referring to labor unions? They were once popular in the early 20th century of America, before the massive anti-communist propaganda and jailing of union leaders and socialists came after.
These labor unions surely did make many gains for the working class. It was thanks to them the pressure of the minimum wage, and many worker benefits were introduced too the government.
Though you do admit the class struggle that exists within capitalist society?
In a communist system, if a large chunk of society decides to slack off, the rest of society has to outcast those who aren't working, or force them to work.
I thought you weren't going to go into how communism will fail.
Though may I ask why everyone would suddenly become lazy?
I still believe that capitalism will always provide more for the people.
If you mean more exploitation, propaganda, poverty, and class dominance, then sure.
America only buys from sweatshops. If China has sweatshops, then it's China's decision to own sweatshops.
Not true, American corporations like Walmart and Nike have sweatshops.
And as if the working people of China as a whole voted to have sweatshops?
I already knew that it would be that link before I clicked it. I seen it. Them smiling while they talk about such a serious issue and trying to pass it off as just "Oh well its not a big deal! Its all ways been that way, chill out!" has me question its intellectual level as a whole.
Its argument is essentially that they would be worse off it.
Maybe they should revolt with... let's say... their own government who is selling them out to America?
The state is only an instrument of control of the bourgeoisie. What relevance does the government even have to its capitalists who exploit them?
China's government doesn't decide on its own on what the minimum wage is, and how the workers being employed to its capitalists are being treated.
Those in the government themselves tend to be the rich and upper classes who represent not the will of the people, but the corporations.
I think capitalists would adapt, but if they didn't this would benefit communists. If people working in sweatshops revolt against their own nation who is selling them out, then capitalist nations wouldn't be able to use these people. Then the capitalist system would fall apart (or not). If these people who revolted were rewarded with better jobs, then maybe capitalist nations will do fair trade with them. This would, however, mean that capitalism wasn't causing their problems, only benefiting from them. If America decided not to trade with these people, this would prove your point right, in which case, capitalism would fail, and Americans would be open to communism.
I don't know what to say. That didn't even follow logically.
It does nothing for the poor in other countries. I will agree with this statement. However, as I said before, America is benefiting off these people, not depending on them. I believe that America's benefition over these people are only causing problems in the economy, because higher ups are depending on the poor in other countries more than the people, middle class and poor, in their own.
But how can you expect any better for the poor if a system is in place that prosperous off the existence of poverty?
Things may not be going well for the American proletariat, but the rich are no less richer. Their exporting of jobs may hurt the American people, but it still benefits the capitalists who have sweatshops in other countries.
With communism, the country would work within itself, having very little to do with other countries, but trade with other countries keeps nations together!
The notion of communist country itself doesn't make sense.
England and France always hated each other. There have always been constant wars. They start trading with each other and became defendant on each other. Now they don't fight with each other. The whole world would have to be communist and share the same exact values as each other, such as what constitutes as fair.
What a historical analysis it is to say that wars stopped happening because England started trading with France. That itself isn't entirely true. Trade within the merchants did occur with England and France. Their wars were not out of "hate" but out of the imperialist struggle of the hierarchical system to secure wealth, land, colonies, slaves, and other exploitative goods for the upper classes!
We still have war today, btw.
To try and simplify the matter of war to the mere "its cause we trade with them" is lacking of political and historical context.
War with China is actually being much speculated by people. Imperialist countries have the tendencies to try to keep their role of hegemony. With the rise of China as a superpower, all I can see coming is another cold war.
So don't talk about America being the cause of foreign problems such as starvation and poor wage. Under communism, America wouldn't be involved, and there would be no surplus of food to waste or to give to other countries, and therefore there would still be starvation and wage issues around the world, because China causes its own problems. Communism, if anything, would only benefit itself, not the rest of the world (other than keeping their nose out of affairs they should stay out of maybe).
You still seem to have a deranged view of communism. You can't simply replace communism with capitalism and compare situations. It ignores many factors that would come with the change. Don't reduce this to communism vs capitalism. Its a very simplistic view which ignores history, economics, logic and poverty. Communism is a whole different outlook of the condition of the world.
American imperialism has actually played a vital role in the destruction of many countries. Haiti comes to mind.
Ironically, "becoming communist" has made gains to the working class in many places. Yugoslavia, before being bombed by NATO. Chile under Allende, before the US supported coup of Pinochet, Bolivia, El Salvador before the US supported dictatorship, Cuba which even now suffers from the embargo, Bulgaria, Haiti before the 30 year American occupation and its overthrow of its leftist and most popular president, who is even now exiled by the CIA, etc.
The condition of poverty though is more of a result of a class dominated system than just the mere existence of America. This is a good talk of Michael Parenti on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smc-0X3Sik0&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWbnYI3S9kQ
