billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 10, 2013 12:15:33 GMT -5
... ... a feudal world, much like the dark ages- where a very small elite live in splendor, and an increasingly large mass of people live in squalor. ... (Splendor and squalor being relative terms.) My view is that this has always been the situation. What is changing is that the United States had an extremely high worldwide percentage of that very small elite and the large mass of people living in squalor were in other parts of the world. What we are seeing is that people in other parts of the world are taking over more of those elite spots and people in the U.S. are living in less "splendor" as a result.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 14:08:38 GMT -5
'if you don't mind me asking, what is your "regular" work?' Retired .... but I know that isn't what you are asking. I'm a retired electronic/calibration tech and even when I was working for a wage I still had to do 'scut' work. We didn't have the funds to hire a house cleaning service. Now I volunteer as much as I can. I answer phones at the activity center, deliver meals, take people to Dr appointments. All of this is in-between our own Dr appts. And if you say that is 'woman's work' I will take that potato launcher to you. LOL oh God! NOT THE POTATO LAUNCHER!!!! i think that scut tasks should be rotated, actually. there is no reason that one person has to suffer that, other than "tradition".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 14:10:10 GMT -5
... ... a feudal world, much like the dark ages- where a very small elite live in splendor, and an increasingly large mass of people live in squalor. ... (Splendor and squalor being relative terms.) My view is that this has always been the situation. What is changing is that the United States had an extremely high worldwide percentage of that very small elite and the large mass of people living in squalor were in other parts of the world. What we are seeing is that people in other parts of the world are taking over more of those elite spots and people in the U.S. are living in less "splendor" as a result. just heard the 2012 income statistics on NPR. the top 1% increased income 20% in 2012, the bottom 99%, 1%. if that is in REAL terms, then it is an improvement over 2011 for the bottom 99%- but i doubt it is- meaning they lost ground AGAIN.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 10, 2013 14:31:32 GMT -5
(Splendor and squalor being relative terms.) My view is that this has always been the situation. What is changing is that the United States had an extremely high worldwide percentage of that very small elite and the large mass of people living in squalor were in other parts of the world. What we are seeing is that people in other parts of the world are taking over more of those elite spots and people in the U.S. are living in less "splendor" as a result. just heard the 2012 income statistics on NPR. the top 1% increased income 20% in 2012, the bottom 99%, 1%. if that is in REAL terms, then it is an improvement over 2011 for the bottom 99%- but i doubt it is- meaning they lost ground AGAIN. You are only talking about statistics for the United States, correct? So I am not sure why you quoted my posting.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 10, 2013 14:47:23 GMT -5
We are currently part of a feudal system that is trying very hard to disguise itself as capitalism. I think the comparison you are making between scut work and slavery would be better made with feudlism. It is all about the contracts we enter with each other as a society. Slaves can't enter into contracts. Serfs can. Serfs are picking what they perceive to be their best option, often of a bunch of bad choices. lb- i really DO worry that we (most of us, anyway) are heading to a SORT of serfdom. if you listen to the chatter, it is all about the cruelty of minimum wage, and how unfair it is for businesspeople. RARELY is it said that minimum wage is cruel. sure, the language that is used about the suffering of the poor implies it- but we have lost our ability to portray things that starkly- and it really is a danger, imo. i could go on a rant about the human condition and our responsibility to one another not only as Americans, but as inhabitants of this finite world- but that seems like a reach at this point. Obviously the goal is to set minimum wage as high as possible while avoiding the many hazards that accompany setting it too high. And I say "many" with conviction. By definition a minimum wage flouts the market price for labour, hence you're forcing a market out of price equilibrium. The more forcing you do, the more unstable the result. Hence the first problem. If the minimum wage rises to the point where "scut work" (unskilled labour, say) pays nearly the same as the market price for skilled labour, trades, etc., you've eliminated much of the impetus for people to invest in training and education to pursue these trades. Ergo the laws can inadvertently force a labour shortage in industries with market salaries that aren't even directly affected. There are many credible studies linking minimum wage laws to increases in LCoL and (nationally) inflation, which eat away at the benefits afforded by the laws. Perhaps most importantly, high minimum wages can and do sink businesses, especially start-ups and smaller businesses at the heart of the middle class. It's a tradeoff. There exists a positive monotonic relationship between minimum wage and rate of business failure. I don't know what it is, but for a store with 2 employees working four 40 hour weeks, even a difference of $2.00 in the minimum wage equals $640.00 a month in additional wages. That kind of outflow can easily turn meager profits into accumulating losses. At some point we have to acknowledge that a high minimum wage's impact on the viability of businesses "kill off" such businesses (and the middle class along with it) in an attempt to better the lives of wage earners. A wage earner without a job is no better off that a wage earner making a less-than-stellar minimum wage. What genuinely worries me is that minimum wage is nowhere near the heart of the vanishing middle class in the US. Even if the US hiked the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and bore no consequences, the impact would be a pittance compared to the money being pumped out of the middle class into the upper/lower class divide. Add to this the problem of worsening North American demographics, a diminishing work ethic and growing sense of entitlement in younger generations, and the fact that market value for unskilled trades continues to go lower and lower as technology proliferates and consumption dwindles, Uncle Sam and the Commonwealth nations are facing a mounting crisis (just in case the debt crisis wasn't enough for us). If you have any brilliant "hail Mary" suggestions, now is the time for them. The US hit another grim milestone this week: 1/6 of all households on food stamps.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 10, 2013 14:49:41 GMT -5
Median salaries have been declining over the past six months. So pine for the good old days of 2012, when at least the latter figure was positive. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/undecided.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 21:36:04 GMT -5
just heard the 2012 income statistics on NPR. the top 1% increased income 20% in 2012, the bottom 99%, 1%. if that is in REAL terms, then it is an improvement over 2011 for the bottom 99%- but i doubt it is- meaning they lost ground AGAIN. You are only talking about statistics for the United States, correct? So I am not sure why you quoted my posting. oh, sorry. i thought you used "US" and "elites" in your sentence. my mistake. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 21:40:26 GMT -5
lb- i really DO worry that we (most of us, anyway) are heading to a SORT of serfdom. if you listen to the chatter, it is all about the cruelty of minimum wage, and how unfair it is for businesspeople. RARELY is it said that minimum wage is cruel. sure, the language that is used about the suffering of the poor implies it- but we have lost our ability to portray things that starkly- and it really is a danger, imo. i could go on a rant about the human condition and our responsibility to one another not only as Americans, but as inhabitants of this finite world- but that seems like a reach at this point. Obviously the goal is to set minimum wage as high as possible while avoiding the many hazards that accompany setting it too high. And I say "many" with conviction. By definition a minimum wage flouts the market price for labour, hence you're forcing a market out of price equilibrium. The more forcing you do, the more unstable the result. Hence the first problem. If the minimum wage rises to the point where "scut work" (unskilled labour, say) pays nearly the same as the market price for skilled labour, trades, etc., you've eliminated much of the impetus for people to invest in training and education to pursue these trades. . as many times as you and others make this point, i will continue to disagree with it. i know many people who not only got college degrees, but advanced ones, to work in fields that pay less than ones that require no formal education at all. in those cases they were driven by a personal desire and in some cases an aptitude to work in those fields. i know people who work in the music business that are below the poverty line, but would not even THINK of doing anything else. they are obsessed with the life, and doing what they love, and would not leave it for any amount of love or money. i honestly don't think MOST people consider income above all other things in their career choices other than in the Roman Vote sense: will i starve or not? but i might be totally wrong about this. it is just my general impression.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 21:41:51 GMT -5
Median salaries have been declining over the past six months. So pine for the good old days of 2012, when at least the latter figure was positive. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/undecided.png) they have been declining for a good while. if i didn't imply that in my post, i meant to.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2013 21:55:44 GMT -5
There are many credible studies linking minimum wage laws to increases in LCoL and (nationally) inflation, which eat away at the benefits afforded by the laws. none that i have seen. i have never seen a study that did NOT show that for those at or near minimum wage, that minimum wage increases did NOT far exceed inflation.Perhaps most importantly, high minimum wages can and do sink businesses, especially start-ups and smaller businesses at the heart of the middle class. i have never seen any evidence of this either. but you know me, Virgil. i am a sucker for studies.It's a tradeoff. There exists a positive monotonic relationship between minimum wage and rate of business failure. I don't know what it is, but for a store with 2 employees working four 40 hour weeks, even a difference of $2.00 in the minimum wage equals $640.00 a month in additional wages. the average revenue per employee in retail is $290,000/year. that is just under $25k/month/employee. so what you are saying is that a difference in net margin of 2.6% is enough to bury a retailer. if so, i would say that retailer is in the wrong business, once again. if this sounds familar, it is. people really need to carefully consider where they deploy their capital if it can't support a 2.6% margin shift once every 3 years (average).That kind of outflow can easily turn meager profits into accumulating losses. At some point we have to acknowledge that a high minimum wage's impact on the viability of businesses "kill off" such businesses (and the middle class along with it) in an attempt to better the lives of wage earners. A wage earner without a job is no better off that a wage earner making a less-than-stellar minimum wage. What genuinely worries me is that minimum wage is nowhere near the heart of the vanishing middle class in the US. i share your concern.Even if the US hiked the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and bore no consequences, the impact would be a pittance compared to the money being pumped out of the middle class into the upper/lower class divide. Add to this the problem of worsening North American demographics, a diminishing work ethic and growing sense of entitlement in younger generations, and the fact that market value for unskilled trades continues to go lower and lower as technology proliferates and consumption dwindles, Uncle Sam and the Commonwealth nations are facing a mounting crisis (just in case the debt crisis wasn't enough for us). If you have any brilliant "hail Mary" suggestions, now is the time for them. The US hit another grim milestone this week: 1/6 of all households on food stamps. i am not sure that is a milestone. the slope of the curve "number of people on foodstamps" has been negative since 2009. the slope is quite close to zero now. i am not sure it is any different than the growth in general population at this point, but you do the math: Date Number of people on food stamps Jan '12 46.5M Sep '12 47.8M Today about the same as Sep 2012 not that it is great to have 15% of the US public on food stamps, but the problem does not appear to be getting worse, to me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 11, 2013 0:05:35 GMT -5
You misunderstand the argument. The studies hypothesize that LCoL and inflation rise in response to minimum wage hikes, not the other way around. Consider one meta-analysis by the NCPA. Money is less important for people who are passionate, or for people who train for highly specialized careers. But especially among my lesser-educated friends and family, income is the prime mover. You make the mistake of assuming that people will always gravitate towards work that they like because they must like something. The reality is that many people simply don't like to do anything that others are willing to pay them for. Or perhaps an individual doesn't know how to capitalize on his skills. The bottom line: work is the necessary drudgery between intervals of free time, the only time when "living" actually occurs. Work is hell, no matter what it is. The more it pays and the less of it there is, the better. I can't tell you the number of times I've come across this mentality. Good for them. Retail including what? Everything? Boats? Diamond watches? Cars? Appliances? How about this: first you strip out all of the retailers whose salaries would be so far above minimum wage that it's a joke to include them in such an analysis; second, eliminate all of the retailers whose commissions and tips dwarf their salaries; third, add in the legions of small businesses that have nothing to do with retail and who pay at or near minimum wage; fourth, look at what the median revenue per employee is among the new sample. Come back to me with those new figures and make your case that $640.00 a month can't make or break small businesses, and pontificate that the "retailer is in the wrong business" because they're operating on margin. The US has an incredibly low minimum wage. I agree with you that there's a more upside potential than downside potential to raising it. But your see-no-evil approach reeks of willful blindness. ![Negative Slope?](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/08-2/Household%20SNAP.jpg) I'm not seeing a whole lot of negative slopes, except in the amount the government is actually paying out per family. You're right in that it appears to be plateaued for the moment, although the latest data point (June) is the highest on record.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 8:35:17 GMT -5
The noise you just heard, ladies and gentlemen, was a *FACTSMACK* ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 11, 2013 8:53:54 GMT -5
There's little doubt there are some people who would do this. Yet, I don't believe they're anything more than a very small minority. Those who strive will sometimes be heard to say they'd love the chance to do nothing; however, when given that chance it's not long before they're looking for "something to do". You don't see a huge number of people who are over 65 and can afford to retire continuing to work the same jobs they did before they were 65. Ditto for lottery winners. The things you do to keep bread on the table are generally not the same things that you do to 'have something to do' are generally not the same thing. If they were, companies wouldn't have to pay 'support a family' wages to get people to do them. Hobbies and volunteering are generally more enjoyable than real jobs, and you can do hobbies and volunteering on your own terms. If I became independently wealthy, I doubt I'd be sitting around watching TV all day, but I sure as heck wouldn't be a productive little worker bee either. To compare hobbies to work is an insult to the people who are actually working.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 11, 2013 8:57:17 GMT -5
No kidding. I'm considered highly educated and I went to work because I needed to support myself and then two kids. If I'd been independently wealthy, I'd have lived my life very differently. Even smart people need to eat.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 11, 2013 9:16:08 GMT -5
I disagree. Serfs generally weren't allowed to better their situations. They were in a position where they either became serfs or starved. Today, there are a lot of jobs out there that don't require a huge amount of education or intelligence and in my career (working at call centers), I've seen plenty of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who worked scut jobs while going to school for something better. The fact that many people from disadvanted backgrounds choose not to better themselves doesn't erase the fact that the choice exists. Serfs and slaves worked a lot longer hours and a lot harder work than the vast majority of minimum wage workers. If someone who is working 80 hours a week doing backbreaking labor doesn't have the time and energy to better themselves, that is understandable. If someone who is working under 40 hours a week at a job we let teenagers do doesn't better themselves, that is something else entirely. To compare serfs and slaves to someone working half as many hours at a teenager's job is a ridiculous comparison and an insult to the serfs and slaves, who worked a hell of a lot harder than the vast majority of minimum wage workers today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 9:17:29 GMT -5
No kidding. I'm considered highly educated and I went to work because I needed to support myself and then two kids. If I'd been independently wealthy, I'd have lived my life very differently. Even smart people need to eat.This is a bizarre little tangent, but I wonder if the depth of unwillingness to have to work for food - the depth of our Adamic resentment of Gen 3:19 - accounts for the no-less-profound willingness of Breatharians to opt out of the whole game...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 9:39:26 GMT -5
Breatharians?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 11, 2013 9:50:09 GMT -5
*chuckle* Breatharians are folks who believe one doesn't have to eat and drink to live, laterbloomer. One lives on prana. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well over the long haul. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 9:50:13 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 10:27:12 GMT -5
I don't actually think you forgot but thanks for the explanation ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahright.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 10:31:36 GMT -5
I disagree. Serfs generally weren't allowed to better their situations. They were in a position where they either became serfs or starved. Today, there are a lot of jobs out there that don't require a huge amount of education or intelligence and in my career (working at call centers), I've seen plenty of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who worked scut jobs while going to school for something better. The fact that many people from disadvanted backgrounds choose not to better themselves doesn't erase the fact that the choice exists. Serfs and slaves worked a lot longer hours and a lot harder work than the vast majority of minimum wage workers. If someone who is working 80 hours a week doing backbreaking labor doesn't have the time and energy to better themselves, that is understandable. If someone who is working under 40 hours a week at a job we let teenagers do doesn't better themselves, that is something else entirely. To compare serfs and slaves to someone working half as many hours at a teenager's job is a ridiculous comparison and an insult to the serfs and slaves, who worked a hell of a lot harder than the vast majority of minimum wage workers today. You are assuming that every serf spent 80 hours a week working and ignoring what the working poor have to take care of at home as part of their labour. Not every farm job is back breaking labour.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 11, 2013 10:49:55 GMT -5
Do you honestly want to make the case that serfs and slaves worked under 40 hours a week and didn't have housework to do when they got home? Do you honestly want to make the case that than being out in the elements working on a farm isn't harder work than working retail in a clmate controlled store?
Do you actually know any farmers? I know quite a few, and every single one of them was physically stronger than any of my male office mates well into their 60's because farming is such hard work. You're really cracking me up.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 11, 2013 11:08:54 GMT -5
*chuckle* Breatharians are folks who believe one doesn't have to eat and drink to live, laterbloomer. One lives on prana. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well over the long haul. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) And very few are familiar with them because even more so than the Quakers, their population is very self limitating. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/crazy.gif) LOL! Yeah, they tend to leave a bald spot on the grass where they were sitting while they didn't eat, or drink. It's a great money-saving plan. Sadly, it only works for those who survive the breatharian. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:28:58 GMT -5
Do you honestly want to make the case that serfs and slaves worked under 40 hours a week and didn't have housework to do when they got home? Do you honestly want to make the case that than being out in the elements working on a farm isn't harder work than working retail in a clmate controlled store? Do you actually know any farmers? I know quite a few, and every single one of them was physically stronger than any of my male office mates well into their 60's because farming is such hard work. You're really cracking me up. No, I want to make the arguement that not every serf spent 80 hours a week in the fields and not every minimum wage worker works in retail. As I said to dj before you don't get to compare the worst case of one situation against the best case of the other. If we get to do that I want to compare house servants to migrant crop pickers!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:42:30 GMT -5
Oh ya, those farmers that are in such great shape kinda prove my point about it not being back breaking work. It's physical for sure, and that seems to have benefitted your 60 year old farmer friends.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 11, 2013 13:31:48 GMT -5
You make a good point about apples to watermellons comparison. But there is a reason why Walmart has no problem staffing it's stores with an overwhelmingly American workforce while most migrant crop pickers are not citizens, and many are illegal. Working 30-40 hours a week in a climate controlled store is a much easier gig than being out in the heat picking crops. And you're really fooling yourself if you think there were many slaves or serfs that worked under 40 hours a week. You don't get to keep control of a large population by giving them lots of time to make mischief.
And among the jobs that American citizens will do, how many who are making close to minimum wage are doing anything much harder than retail? I'm sure there are some somewhere, but that sure as heck isn't the norm in my neck of the woods.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 11, 2013 13:39:06 GMT -5
Oh ya, those farmers that are in such great shape kinda prove my point about it not being back breaking work. It's physical for sure, and that seems to have benefitted your 60 year old farmer friends. Today's farmers have tractors and other equipment. Slaves and serfs did not. I can't believe you need someone to point this out to you. And again, you don't end up 60 years old and able to benchpress 100 lbs without spending a lot of time working a hell of a lot harder than most American's are willing to do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 13:56:48 GMT -5
LOL former, you have me arguing almost the opposite point I took with dj earlier. It's not about who works hardest, it is about the relationship serfs had with the landowners, vs the relationship that skut workers have with employers now. (I'm not even sure anyone classified retail as skut work.) Landowners reaped the benefit of the serfs' labour in the past and the corporations and shareholders reap the benefit of the low income workers labour now. Both are exploitation. Both serfs and low income workers face significant challenges to improving their lot in life.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 11, 2013 14:32:02 GMT -5
But a low income worker can leave and better themselves. A serf had t run away to a city and then hope he or she was never found. If found they could be branded or otherwise severely punished. Serfdom was equivalent to slavery.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:51:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 14:52:11 GMT -5
|
|