It is true that land is not obtained by labor, but it is still a limited resource needed for production, so if someone owns it, that someone will most of the time only agree other people use it in exchange for part of the final product.
in exchange for part of the final product.
If that final product is ‘money’ then I understand your logic and also why this comic exists. At the most minimalist interpretation that inherent rentierism is an example of an unnecessary extraction of the value of labor from those who produce it.
But again, this is about wages. You can’t slide between ‘wage earners’ and ‘owners’ any more than you can define ‘land’ and ‘landowners’ interchangeably.
Look, you can focus on land all you want. But as I said, remove it from the equation and my point still stands. I only included land to make a more real example. It is not needed for an argument. You’re just using it to avoid arguing against my initial position.
I am consistently referring to ‘wages’ which is a word you’ve now categorically refused to use so far. If I am to avoid anything it is further perversing a discussion on whether Felix the Cat is out of his element here.
I haven’t refused to use it. I just didn’t because there is no wage in this post. It’s a transaction.
You bake me a loaf, I give you a slice.
Can convert it to a wage if you want.
Bake me 500 loafs per month, I’ll give you a wage of 500 slices per month.
I’ve done it, I used the word wage. How does this change anything of the argument? It’s still the same. You can’t provide a wage of 500 loafs per month to someone that bakes 500 loafs per month.
in exchange for part of the final product.
If that final product is ‘money’ then I understand your logic and also why this comic exists. At the most minimalist interpretation that inherent rentierism is an example of an unnecessary extraction of the value of labor from those who produce it.
But again, this is about wages. You can’t slide between ‘wage earners’ and ‘owners’ any more than you can define ‘land’ and ‘landowners’ interchangeably.
Look, you can focus on land all you want. But as I said, remove it from the equation and my point still stands. I only included land to make a more real example. It is not needed for an argument. You’re just using it to avoid arguing against my initial position.
I am consistently referring to ‘wages’ which is a word you’ve now categorically refused to use so far. If I am to avoid anything it is further perversing a discussion on whether Felix the Cat is out of his element here.
I haven’t refused to use it. I just didn’t because there is no wage in this post. It’s a transaction.
You bake me a loaf, I give you a slice.
Can convert it to a wage if you want.
Bake me 500 loafs per month, I’ll give you a wage of 500 slices per month.
I’ve done it, I used the word wage. How does this change anything of the argument? It’s still the same. You can’t provide a wage of 500 loafs per month to someone that bakes 500 loafs per month.