Again- a limited labor pool means a limited number of the drug that can be developed. That means that only a limited amount can be distributed, which might not be enough to provide it for everyone who needs it.
It’s obvious that we see labor differently. I don’t consider labor to be a commodity, and therefore I don’t think any of the concerns you raised about labor shortages are something worth worrying about.
Actually, I can. Because I did. On a fundamental level, we disagree about what labor is. Labor is not a commodity. It’s treated like a commodity within capitalism, but it’s plain and simply not a commodity.
Let’s imagine I had 100 rocks. For some reason I have to move them in order to feed everyone.
If I have one person I can move one rock a day.
With two people I can move two rocks.
And so on and so forth.
There is a labor demand - the need to move rocks.
And a labor supply - the number of people you have available to move rocks.
You can’t mind game your way out of that. Call it a commodity or not, you still need X people to do Y tasks and the discrepancy between the tasks and the people you have to do them is a measure and very real thing.
Despite the attempt to simplify labor to the point of fiction, I can roll with this example to explain why I see labor vastly different from you. I have a lot of questions about this set up. How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?
You as an employer want to move as many rocks as possible as fast as possible with as few people as possible. The people comprising your labor force want to move the correct number of rocks on a reasonable timescale with adequate resources and be recognized as valuable individuals. If your needs from the foundational questions are out of line with the worker’s needs, then you are not guaranteed that labor, and you don’t deserve that labor. The factors that determine if the labor is essential are the workers and society, not the employer. If the workers or society don’t deem the labor to be as essential or as worthwhile as you think, then you face delays or other factors. In a cooperative or otherwise non-market economy on a larger scale, this would appear as degrowth, which is normal and ok. Not everything is essential, and even in periods of degrowth there’s still plenty of labor that can be done. All labor is specialized as well, which is an additional problem I had with the initial objections. People are flexible and want to provide meaningful labor. If there’s a period of degrowth and the task of moving rocks becomes a completely unnecessary for the current economic needs, the people providing labor will seek out new meaningful labor. The needs of labor always change, but labor itself is a fundamental and unchanging aspect built into our natural instincts for survival.
How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?
Yes. Let’s introduce OSHA standards into a theoretical example where moving rocks feeds people.
All the while spinning a billion bullshit nonsense side points.
Labor has a supply.
Labor has a demand.
To dismiss that is to dismiss reality. Yes. The nature of labor can change and some sorts of work can be abandoned when there is a shortage. No. That doesn’t invalidate scarcity and your “degrowth is good and okay” seems tor to just be a hilarious and twisted rationalization of how when your ideals cause the economy (and more importantly the general will being of people in the nation) to collapse that it’s actually a good thing.
How does that matter in the context of fairly distributing goods in a modernized indigenous economy?
Again- a limited labor pool means a limited number of the drug that can be developed. That means that only a limited amount can be distributed, which might not be enough to provide it for everyone who needs it.
Why are you making me repeat myself?
It’s obvious that we see labor differently. I don’t consider labor to be a commodity, and therefore I don’t think any of the concerns you raised about labor shortages are something worth worrying about.
You can’t “I don’t see labor as a commodity” your way out of scarcity. That’s just hilariously absurd.
Literally head in the sand sort of thinking.
Actually, I can. Because I did. On a fundamental level, we disagree about what labor is. Labor is not a commodity. It’s treated like a commodity within capitalism, but it’s plain and simply not a commodity.
Let’s imagine I had 100 rocks. For some reason I have to move them in order to feed everyone.
If I have one person I can move one rock a day.
With two people I can move two rocks.
And so on and so forth.
There is a labor demand - the need to move rocks.
And a labor supply - the number of people you have available to move rocks.
You can’t mind game your way out of that. Call it a commodity or not, you still need X people to do Y tasks and the discrepancy between the tasks and the people you have to do them is a measure and very real thing.
Arrogance that knows no bounds.
Despite the attempt to simplify labor to the point of fiction, I can roll with this example to explain why I see labor vastly different from you. I have a lot of questions about this set up. How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?
You as an employer want to move as many rocks as possible as fast as possible with as few people as possible. The people comprising your labor force want to move the correct number of rocks on a reasonable timescale with adequate resources and be recognized as valuable individuals. If your needs from the foundational questions are out of line with the worker’s needs, then you are not guaranteed that labor, and you don’t deserve that labor. The factors that determine if the labor is essential are the workers and society, not the employer. If the workers or society don’t deem the labor to be as essential or as worthwhile as you think, then you face delays or other factors. In a cooperative or otherwise non-market economy on a larger scale, this would appear as degrowth, which is normal and ok. Not everything is essential, and even in periods of degrowth there’s still plenty of labor that can be done. All labor is specialized as well, which is an additional problem I had with the initial objections. People are flexible and want to provide meaningful labor. If there’s a period of degrowth and the task of moving rocks becomes a completely unnecessary for the current economic needs, the people providing labor will seek out new meaningful labor. The needs of labor always change, but labor itself is a fundamental and unchanging aspect built into our natural instincts for survival.
Yes. Let’s introduce OSHA standards into a theoretical example where moving rocks feeds people.
All the while spinning a billion bullshit nonsense side points.
Labor has a supply.
Labor has a demand.
To dismiss that is to dismiss reality. Yes. The nature of labor can change and some sorts of work can be abandoned when there is a shortage. No. That doesn’t invalidate scarcity and your “degrowth is good and okay” seems tor to just be a hilarious and twisted rationalization of how when your ideals cause the economy (and more importantly the general will being of people in the nation) to collapse that it’s actually a good thing.
Congrats, you managed to completely misunderstand the reasons why I view labor differently from you.