Every product has an objective value to it in the sense that it required a certain amount of labor to produce.
Regardless of how mechanized an industry may be, there is always a tangible and measurable amount of labor that was required to bring that product to market.
There is also a measurable amount of resources that are required to produce the product.
Resources and labor are the two things that enable production to occur, but they are hardly relevant to how the distribution of compensation is rewarded.
In capitalism, these values are only of implicit consequence in consideration of the product’s worth once it reaches the market.
The product is only worth as much as the consumer is willing to pay. Each individual consumer can value a product with whatever paradigm they wish to utilize, but I believe that the objective and substantive resources and labors should be where market prices are derived as opposed to a demand based model.
My argument that I am going to support in this treatise is that capitalism as a process is inherently unjust and requires correction.
Capitalism is a cryptic and elaborate process which has deluded the objective worth required to produce any good or service.
It has enabled an intermediary to manipulate products and create artificial value in between the margin where the producer and consumer are both unaware of the objective value inherent in what they are creating or purchasing.
It is a series of implicit negotiations where values appear to be standardized but are actually completely subjective and relative.
These negotiations tend to be egocentric in that they tend to the self-interests of each party and are subject to the perceived values according to the consumer, producer and intermediary.
The consumer wants to pay the lowest possible price to receive the items they value.
The producer wants to be paid the highest possible price to produce their good or service.
The intermediary wants to collect the highest possible price for items they wish to sell to the consumer while paying the lowest possible wage to the producer.
This dynamic where the intermediary attempts to convince the producer that their product is of relatively less worth while simultaneously convincing the consumer that the product is of relatively more worth is a paradox.
One might assume a person of moral character would be aware of the dissonance between these contradictory concepts they are trying to create. In a capitalist society, this dynamic becomes the norm and is seen as integral to conducting business transactions.
Having a market where perceived value is the only thing of consequence allows for this manipulation.
This perceived value allows for the defrauding of the consumer and producer in transactions.
Any person who can manipulate the perceived value to others can benefit in capitalism, but it is the intermediary who holds an intrinsic and multi-dimensional benefit in leveraging trade.
When this model is applied to how a business operates, it becomes clear how the worth of a product becomes ambiguous.
An intermediary employs workers (producers). Each worker makes a minimum wage and has an expected quota to fulfill. The intermediary hires other workers (facilitators) that monitor the producer to ensure they have tools, consumable materials, and a functioning facility to produce the product.
These facilitators get paid slightly above the producer’s wage. Finally, there is the sales and acquisitions which is initiated by the intermediaries.
Acquisitions include the hiring of labor, the procurement of raw materials, and attaining a facility to produce the product.
The difference between the intermediary and the facilitator is the initial negotiation.
Once the price has been negotiated, the activities become routine and can be delegated to the facilitators when provided criteria to fulfill.
Now that the primary set-up is complete, it requires relatively little oversight to continue production on the intermediary’s behalf when compared to the work that the producers and facilitators must accomplish.
The intermediaries objective labors are complete yet their subjective earnings are infinite as long as market demand persists.
This contrasts the producer’s wages which are fixed and dependent upon the continuous production of goods in order to receive compensation.
They are working to subsist while they increase the net worth of the intermediary through no direct action of the intermediary. This effortless accumulation of wealth is where the injustice takes place.
Being a master of perceived value allows for a redistribution of wealth. Capitalists filter out the value created by the producer and market it to a consumer, then claim the profit.
The profit has no direct correlation to the amount of work completed. This disproportionate compensation is an affront to the natural rights of men and should require regulation to ensure that compensation is only rewarded when it can be justified through the labors of the individual.
In a capitalist context, the efforts to produce the product are of no consequence and its objective worth is removed.
This abstraction of the product makes all prior actions required to make that product meaningless.
I could pay a child to make shoes for food money (see: China) and it would be considered a just trade as long as it was a consensual trade according to Capitalist ethics.
These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that hard work does not lead to prosperity.
The efforts required to produce a product are of no consequence in deriving the final value of the product to the consumer when put into the capitalist model.
The only use the efforts required to make the product have in the transaction to the consumer is in manipulating the perceived value to the consumer as a marketing tool.
This can be demonstrated in disproportionate wages that workers are paid in different countries.
The ambiguity of currency enables the separation between the producer and the objective value he created in his product.
If the consumer is only willing to pay $5 for a product that requires 15 hours to make, the capitalist’s objective is to find a labor market that can produce the product for under $.30 an hour.
There are no ethics in the free market that dictate a price floor. Using a subjective currency erodes away the ability of individuals to properly identify the value inherent in products.
The less you can get the producer to work for is seen as positive regardless of the impact on the producer who manufactures the product.
If you could convince the producer to work for a wage that they couldn’t afford basic necessities, i.e. health care, food, shelter, education; (see: Wal-Mart) you would be maximizing your profit which is seen a positive event in Capitalism.
‘
“