Labor
Most of us, when we hear the word "labor" think of "organized labor." That
isn't the reference here. Labor refers to all of us who supply our effort to
a project. Labor is one of the three factors of production (the other two are
land and capital.)
The return to labor is wages, and most of us are concerned
that wages do not keep pace with the cost of living for the vast majority
of Americans. This is not a new phenomenon: Henry George called attention
to it
in 1879 in Progress & Poverty.
See also his 1891 letter called The
Condition of Labor, which lays out George's ideas very clearly.
Henry George: Progress & Poverty: Wages & Capital:
The Meaning of the Terms (Book I, Chapter 2)
Land, labor, and capital are the three factors of
production. If we remember that capital is thus a term used in contradistinction
to land and labor, we at once see that nothing properly included under either
one of these terms can be properly classed as capital. The term land necessarily
includes, not merely the surface of the earth as distinguished from the water
and the air, but the whole material universe outside of man himself, for it
is only by having access to land, from which his very body is drawn, that man
can come in contact with or use nature. The term land embraces, in short, all
natural materials, forces, and opportunities, and, therefore, nothing that
is freely supplied by nature can be properly classed as capital. A fertile
field, a rich vein of ore, a falling stream which supplies power, may give
to the possessor advantages equivalent to the possession of capital, but to
class such things as capital would be to put an end to the distinction between
land and capital, and, so far as they relate to each other, to make the two
terms meaningless. The term labor, in like manner, includes
all human exertion, and hence human powers whether natural or acquired can
never properly be classed as capital. In common parlance we often speak of
a man's knowledge, skill, or industry as constituting his capital; but this
is evidently a metaphorical use of language that must be eschewed in reasoning
that aims at exactness. Superiority in such qualities may augment the income
of an individual just as capital would, and an increase in the knowledge, skill,
or industry of a community may have the same effect in increasing its production
as would an increase of capital; but this effect is due to the increased power
of labor and not to capital. Increased velocity may give to the impact of a
cannon ball the same effect as increased weight, yet, nevertheless, weight
is one thing and velocity another.
[26] Thus we must exclude from the category of capital
everything that may be included either as land or labor. Doing so, there remain
only things which are neither land nor labor, but which have resulted from
the union of these two original factors of production. Nothing can be properly
capital that does not consist of these that is to say, nothing can be capital
that is not wealth. ... read the entire chapter
H.G. Brown: Significant
Paragraphs from Henry George's Progress & Poverty, Chapter 5: The Basic
Cause of Poverty (in the unabridged: Book
V: The Problem Solved)
For land is the habitation of man, the storehouse upon which he must draw
for all his needs, the material to which his labor must be applied for the
supply of all his desires; for even the products of the sea cannot be taken,
the light of the sun enjoyed, or any of the forces of nature utilized, without
the use of land or its products. On the land we are born, from it we live,
to it we return again — children of the soil as truly as is the blade
of grass or the flower of the field. Take away from man all that belongs
to land, and he is but a disembodied spirit. Material progress cannot
rid us of our dependence upon land; it can but add to the power of producing
wealth from land; and hence, when land is monopolized, it might
go on to infinity without increasing wages or improving the condition of
those who have but their labor. It can but add to the value of land
and the power which its possession gives. Everywhere, in all times, among
all peoples, the possession of land is the base of aristocracy, the foundation
of great fortunes, the source of power. ... read
the whole chapter
H.G. Brown: Significant
Paragraphs from Henry George's Progress & Poverty,
Chapter 8: Why a Land-Value Tax is Better than an Equal Tax on All Property (in
the unabridged P&P: Book
VIII: Application of the Remedy — Chapter 3: The proposition tried
by the canons of taxation)
The ground upon which the equal taxation of all species of property is commonly
insisted upon is that it is equally protected by the state. The basis of
this idea is evidently that the enjoyment of property is made possible by
the state — that
there is a value created and maintained by the community, which is justly
called upon to meet community expenses. Now, of what values is this true?
Only of
the value of land. This is a value that does not arise until a community
is formed, and that, unlike other values, grows with the growth of the community.
It exists only as the community exists. Scatter again the largest community,
and land, now so valuable, would have no value at all. With every increase
of population the value of land rises; with every decrease it falls. This
is
true of nothing else save of things which, like the ownership of land,
are in their nature monopolies.
The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes.
- It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable
benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive.
- It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of
that value which is the creation of the community.
- It is the application of the common property to common uses.
When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will
the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an
advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and
intelligence;
and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then,
will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return. ... read the whole chapter
Henry George: The Condition of
Labor — An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum Novarum (1891)
You assume that the labor question is a question between wage-workers and
their employers. But working for wages is not the primary or exclusive occupation
of labor. Primarily men work for themselves without the intervention of an
employer. And the primary source of wages is in the earnings of labor, the
man who works for himself and consumes his own products receiving his wages
in the fruits of his labor. Are not fishermen, boatmen, cab-drivers, peddlers,
working farmers — all, in short, of the many workers who get their
wages directly by the sale of their services or products without the medium
of an employer, as much laborers as those who work for the specific wages
of an employer? In your consideration of remedies you do not seem even to
have thought of them. Yet in reality the laborers who work for themselves
are the first to be considered, since what men will be willing to accept
from employers depends manifestly on what they can get by working for themselves.
You assume that all employers are rich men, who might raise wages much higher
were they not so grasping. But is it not the fact that the great majority
of employers are in reality as much pressed by competition as their workmen,
many of them constantly on the verge of failure? Such employers could not
possibly raise the wages they pay, however they might wish to, unless all
others were compelled to do so.
You assume that there are in the natural order two classes, the rich and
the poor, and that laborers naturally belong to the poor.
It is true as you say that there are differences in capacity, in diligence,
in health and in strength, that may produce differences in fortune. These,
however, are not the differences that divide men into rich and poor. The
natural differences in powers and aptitudes are certainly not greater than
are natural differences in stature. But while it is only by selecting giants
and dwarfs that we can find men twice as tall as others, yet in the difference
between rich and poor that exists today we find some men richer than other
men by the thousandfold and the millionfold.
Nowhere do these differences between wealth and poverty coincide with differences
in individual powers and aptitudes. The real difference between rich and
poor is the difference between those who hold the tollgates and those who
pay toll; between tribute-receivers and tribute-yielders. ...
It seems to us that your Holiness misses its real significance in intimating
that Christ, in becoming the son of a carpenter and himself working as a
carpenter, showed merely that “there is nothing to be ashamed of in
seeking one’s bread by labor.” To say that is almost like saying
that by not robbing people he showed that there is nothing to be ashamed
of in honesty. If you will consider how true in any large view is the
classification of all men into working-men, beggar-men and thieves, you will see that it
was morally impossible that Christ during his stay on earth should have been
anything else than a working-man, since he who came to fulfil the law must
by deed as well as word obey God’s law of labor.
See how fully and how beautifully Christ’s life on earth illustrated
this law. Entering our earthly life in the weakness of infancy, as it is
appointed that all should enter it, he lovingly took what in the natural
order is lovingly rendered, the sustenance, secured by labor, that one generation
owes to its immediate successors. Arrived at maturity, he earned his own
subsistence by that common labor in which the majority of men must and do
earn it. Then passing to a higher — to the very highest — sphere
of labor, he earned his subsistence by the teaching of moral and spiritual
truths, receiving its material wages in the love-offerings of grateful hearers,
and not refusing the costly spikenard with which Mary anointed his feet.
So, when he chose his disciples, he did not go to landowners or other monopolists
who live on the labor of others, but to common laboring-men. And when he
called them to a higher sphere of labor and sent them out to teach moral
and spiritual truths, he told them to take, without condescension on the
one hand or sense of degradation on the other, the loving return for such
labor, saying to them that “the laborer is worthy of his hire,” thus
showing, what we hold, that all labor does not consist in what is called
manual labor, but that whoever helps to add to the material, intellectual,
moral or spiritual fullness of life is also a laborer.*
* Nor should it be forgotten that the investigator, the
philosopher, the teacher, the artist, the poet, the priest, though not
engaged in the
production of wealth, are not only engaged in the production of utilities
and satisfactions
to which the production of wealth is only a means, but by acquiring and
diffusing knowledge, stimulating mental powers and elevating the moral
sense, may greatly
increase the ability to produce wealth. For man does not live by bread
alone. . . . He who by any exertion of mind or body adds to the
aggregate of enjoyable
wealth, increases the sum of human knowledge, or gives to human life
higher elevation or greater fullness — he is, in the large meaning of the
words, a “producer,” a “working-man,” a “laborer,” and
is honestly earning honest wages. But he who without doing aught to make
mankind richer, wiser, better, happier, lives on the toil of others — he,
no matter by what name of honor he may be called, or how lustily the priests
of Mammon may swing their censers before him, is in the last analysis but
a beggar-man or a thief. — Protection or Free Trade, pp. 74-75.
In assuming that laborers, even ordinary manual laborers, are naturally
poor, you ignore the fact that labor is the producer of wealth, and attribute
to the natural law of the Creator an injustice that comes from man’s
impious violation of his benevolent intention. In the rudest stage of the
arts it is possible, where justice prevails, for all well men to earn a living.
With the labor-saving appliances of our time, it should be possible for all
to earn much more. And so, in saying that poverty is no disgrace, you convey
an unreasonable implication. For poverty ought to be a disgrace, since in
a condition of social justice, it would, where unsought from religious motives
or unimposed by unavoidable misfortune, imply recklessness or laziness. ... read
the whole letter
Rev. A. C. Auchmuty: Gems from George, a
themed collection of
excerpts from the writings of Henry George (with links to sources)
THE term Labor includes all human exertion in the production of wealth,
whatever its mode. In common parlance we often speak of brain labor and hand
labor as though they were entirely distinct kinds of exertion, and labor
is often spoken of as though it involved only muscular exertion. But in reality
any form of labor, that is to say, any form of human exertion in the production
of wealth above that which cattle may be applied to doing, requires the human
brain as truly as the human hand, and would be impossible without the exercise
of mental faculties on the part of the laborer. Labor in fact is only physical
in external form. In its origin it is mental or on strict analysis spiritual. — The
Science of Political Economy unabridged:
Book III, Chapter 16: The Production of Wealth, The Second Factor of Production — Labor • abridged:
Part III, Chapter 10: Order of the Three Factors of Production
IT seems to us that your Holiness misses its real significance in intimating
that Christ in becoming the son of a carpenter and Himself working as a carpenter
showed merely that "there is nothing to be ashamed of in seeking one's bread
by labor." To say that is almost like saying that by not robbing people He showed
that there is nothing to be ashamed of in honesty. If you will consider how true
in any large view is the classification of all men into working-men, beggar-men
and thieves, you will see that it was morally impossible that Christ during His
stay on earth should have been anything else than a working-man, since He who
came to fulfill the law must by deed as well as word obey God's law of labor.
See how fully and how beautifully Christ's life on earth illustrated this law.
Entering our earthly life in the weakness of infancy, as it is appointed that
all should enter it, He lovingly took what in the natural order is lovingly rendered,
the sustenance, secured by labor, that one generation owes to its immediate successors.
Arrived at maturity, He earned His own subsistence by that common labor in which
the majority of men must and do earn it. Then passing to a higher — to
the very highest-sphere of labor. He earned His subsistence by the teaching of
moral and spiritual truths, receiving its material wages in the love offerings
of grateful hearers, and not refusing the costly spikenard with which Mary anointed
his feet. So, when He chose His disciples, He did not go to land-owners or other
monopolists who live on the labor of others but to common laboring men. And when
He called them to a higher sphere of labor and sent them out to teach moral and
spiritual truths He told them to take, without condescension on the one hand,
or sense of degradation on the other, the loving return for such labor, saying
to them that the "laborer is worthy of his hire," thus showing, what we hold,
that all labor does not consist in what is called manual labor, but that whoever
helps to add to the material, intellectual, moral, or spiritual fulness of life
is also a laborer. - The Condition
of Labor
NOR should it be forgotten that the investigator, the philosopher, the teacher,
the artist, the poet, the priest, though not engaged in the production of wealth,
are not only engaged in the production of utilities and satisfactions to which
the production of wealth is only a means, but by acquiring and diffusing knowledge,
stimulating mental powers and elevating the moral sense, may greatly increase
the ability to produce wealth. For man does not live by bread alone. He is not
an engine, in which so much fuel gives so much power. On a capstan bar or a topsail
halyard a good song tells like muscle, and a "Marseillaise" or a "Battle Hymn
of the Republic" counts for bayonets. A hearty laugh, a noble thought, a perception
of harmony, may add to the power of dealing even with material things.
He who by any exertion of mind or body adds to the aggregate of enjoyable wealth,
increases the sum of human knowledge or gives to human life higher elevation
or greater fulness — he is, in the large meaning of the words, a "producer," a "working-man," a "laborer," and
is honestly earning honest wages. But he who without doing aught to make mankind
richer, wiser, better, happier, lives on the toil of others — he, no matter
by what name of honor he may be I called, or how lustily the priests of Mammon
may swing their censers before him, is in the last analysis but a beggarman or
a thief. — Protection or Free Trade, Chapter 7 econlib ...
WHEN we speak of a community increasing in wealth we do not mean to say that
there is more land, or that the natural powers of the land are greater, or
that there are more people (for when we wish to express that idea we speak
of increase of population) or that the debts or dues owing by some of these
people to others of their number have increased; but we mean that there is
an increase of certain tangible things, having an actual and not merely a relative
value — such as buildings, cattle, tools, machinery, agricultural and
mineral products, manufactured goods, ships, wagons, furniture and the like.
. . . The common character of these things is that they consist of natural
substances or products which have been adapted by human labor to human use
or gratification, their value depending on the amount of labor which upon the
average would be required to produce things of like kind.— Progress & Poverty — Book
I, Chapter 2: Wages and Capital: The Meaning of the Terms
WEALTH is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended in ministering
directly to desire; but it is the object and result of what we call productive
labor — that is, labor which gives value to material things. Nothing which
nature supplies to man without his labor is wealth, nor yet does the expenditure
of labor result in wealth unless there is a tangible product which has and retains
the power of ministering to desire. — Progress & Poverty — Book
I, Chapter 2: Wages and Capital: The Meaning of the Terms
IT will be well for a moment to consider this idea of accumulated wealth. The
truth is, that wealth can be accumulated but to a slight degree, and that communities
really live, as the vast majority of individuals live, from hand to mouth. Wealth
will not bear much accumulation; except in a few unimportant forms it will not
keep. The matter of the universe, which, when worked up by labor into desirable
forms, constitutes wealth, is constantly tending back to its original state.
Some forms of wealth will last for a few hours, some for a few days, some for
a few months, some for a few years; and there are very few forms of wealth that
can be passed from one generation to another. Take wealth in some of its most
useful and permanent forms — ships, houses, railways, machinery. Unless
labor is constantly exerted in preserving and renewing them, they will almost
immediately become useless. Stop labor in any community, and wealth would vanish
almost as the jet of a fountain vanishes when the flow of water is shut off.
Let labor again exert itself, and wealth will almost as immediately reappear.
Accumulated wealth seems to play just about such a part in relation to the social
organism as accumulated nutriment does to the physical organism. Some accumulated
wealth is necessary, and to a certain extent it may be drawn upon in exigencies;
but the wealth produced by past generations can no more account for the consumption
of the present than the dinners he ate last year can supply a man with present
strength. — Progress & Poverty — Book
II, Chapter 4: Population and Subsistence: Disproof of the Malthusian Theory
THE term Labor includes all human exertion in the production of wealth,
whatever its mode. In common parlance we often speak of brain labor and hand
labor as though they were entirely distinct kinds of exertion, and labor
is often spoken of as though it involved only muscular exertion. But in reality
any form of labor, that is to say, any form of human exertion in the production
of wealth above that which cattle may be applied to doing, requires the human
brain as truly as the human hand, and would be impossible without the exercise
of mental faculties on the part of the laborer. Labor in fact is only physical
in external form. In its origin it is mental or on strict analysis spiritual. — The
Science of Political Economy unabridged:
Book III, Chapter 16: The Production of Wealth, The Second Factor of Production — Labor • abridged:
Part III, Chapter 10: Order of the Three Factors of Production
IT seems to us that your Holiness misses its real significance in intimating
that Christ in becoming the son of a carpenter and Himself working as a carpenter
showed merely that "there is nothing to be ashamed of in seeking one's bread
by labor." To say that is almost like saying that by not robbing people He showed
that there is nothing to be ashamed of in honesty. If you will consider how true
in any large view is the classification of all men into working-men, beggar-men
and thieves, you will see that it was morally impossible that Christ during His
stay on earth should have been anything else than a working-man, since He who
came to fulfill the law must by deed as well as word obey God's law of labor.
See how fully and how beautifully Christ's life on earth illustrated this law.
Entering our earthly life in the weakness of infancy, as it is appointed that
all should enter it, He lovingly took what in the natural order is lovingly rendered,
the sustenance, secured by labor, that one generation owes to its immediate successors.
Arrived at maturity, He earned His own subsistence by that common labor in which
the majority of men must and do earn it. Then passing to a higher — to
the very highest-sphere of labor. He earned His subsistence by the teaching of
moral and spiritual truths, receiving its material wages in the love offerings
of grateful hearers, and not refusing the costly spikenard with which Mary anointed
his feet. So, when He chose His disciples, He did not go to land-owners or other
monopolists who live on the labor of others but to common laboring men. And when
He called them to a higher sphere of labor and sent them out to teach moral and
spiritual truths He told them to take, without condescension on the one hand,
or sense of degradation on the other, the loving return for such labor, saying
to them that the "laborer is worthy of his hire," thus showing, what we hold,
that all labor does not consist in what is called manual labor, but that whoever
helps to add to the material, intellectual, moral, or spiritual fulness of life
is also a laborer. - The Condition of Labor
NOR should it be forgotten that the investigator, the philosopher, the teacher,
the artist, the poet, the priest, though not engaged in the production of wealth,
are not only engaged in the production of utilities and satisfactions to which
the production of wealth is only a means, but by acquiring and diffusing knowledge,
stimulating mental powers and elevating the moral sense, may greatly increase
the ability to produce wealth. For man does not live by bread alone. He is not
an engine, in which so much fuel gives so much power. On a capstan bar or a topsail
halyard a good song tells like muscle, and a "Marseillaise" or a "Battle Hymn
of the Republic" counts for bayonets. A hearty laugh, a noble thought, a perception
of harmony, may add to the power of dealing even with material things.
He who by any exertion of mind or body adds to the aggregate of enjoyable
wealth, increases the sum of human knowledge or gives to human life higher
elevation
or greater fulness — he is, in the large meaning of the words, a "producer," a "working-man," a "laborer," and
is honestly earning honest wages. But he who without doing aught to make mankind
richer, wiser, better, happier, lives on the toil of others — he, no matter
by what name of honor he may be I called, or how lustily the priests of Mammon
may swing their censers before him, is in the last analysis but a beggarman or
a thief. — Protection or Free Trade, Chapter 7 econlib
WE talk about the supply of labor, and the demand for labor, but,
evidently, these are only relative terms. The supply of labor is everywhere
the same — two hands always come into the world with one mouth, twenty-one
boys to every twenty girls; and the demand for labor must always exist as
long as men want things which labor alone can procure. We talk about the "want
of work," but, evidently it is not work that is short while want continues;
evidently, the supply of labor cannot be too great, nor the demand for labor
too small, when people suffer for the lack of things that labor produces.
The real trouble must be that the supply is somehow prevented from satisfying
demand, that somewhere there is an obstacle which prevents labor from producing
the things that laborers want.
Take the case of anyone of these vast masses of unemployed men, to whom, though
he never heard of Malthus, it today seems that there are too many people in the
world. In his own wants, in the needs of his anxious wife, in the demands for
his half cared for, perhaps even hungry and shivering, children, there is demand
enough for labor, Heaven knows! In his own willing hands is the supply. Put him
on a solitary island, and though cut off from all the enormous advantages which
the co-operation, combination, and machinery of a civilized community give to
the productive powers of man, yet his two hands can fill the mouths and keep
warm the backs that depend upon them. Yet where productive power is at its highest
development, he cannot. Why? Is it not because in the one case he has access
to the material and forces of nature, and in the other this access is denied? — Progress & Poverty Book
V, Chapter 1, The Problem Solved: The primary cause of recurring paroxysms of
industrial depression
... go to "Gems from George"
Louis Post: Outlines of Louis F. Post's
Lectures, with Illustrative Notes and Charts (1894)
d. Dependence of Labor upon Land
We have now seen that division of labor and trade, the distinguishing characteristics
of civilization, not only increase labor power, but grow out of a law of
human nature which tends, by maintaining a perpetual revolution of the circle
of trade, to cause opportunities for mutual employment to correspond to desire
for wealth. Surely there could be no lack of employment if the circle flowed
freely in accordance with the principle here illustrated; work would abound
until want was satisfied. There must therefore be some obstruction. That
indirect taxes hamper trade, we have already seen;78 but there is a more
fundamental obstruction. As we learned at the outset, all the material wants
of men are satisfied by Labor from Land. Even personal services cannot be
rendered without the use of appropriate land.79 Let us then introduce into
the preceding chart, in addition to the different classes of Labor, the corresponding
classes of Land-owning interests, indicating them by black balls:
78. See ante, pp. 9, 6 and 16.
79. Demand for food is not only demand for all kinds and
grades of Food-makers, but also for as many different kinds of land as
there are different kinds of labor set at work. So a demand for clothing
is not only a demand for Clothing-makers, a demand for shelter is not
only one for Shelter-makers, a demand for luxuries is not only one for
Luxury-makers, a demand for services is not only one for Personal Servants,
but those demands are also demands for appropriate land — pasture
land for wool, cotton land for cotton, factory land, water fronts and
rights of way, store sites, residence sites, office sites, theater sites,
and so on to the end of an almost endless catalogue.
Every class of Labor has now its own parasite.
The arrows which run from one kind of Labor to another, indicating an out-flow
of service, are respectively offset by arrows that indicate a corresponding
in-flow of service; but the arrows that flow from the various classes
of Labor to the various Land-owning interests are offset by nothing to indicate
a corresponding return. What possible return could those interests make?
- They do not produce the land which they charge laborers for using; nature
provides that.
- They do not give value to it; Labor as a whole does that.
- They do not protect the community through the police, the courts, or
the army, nor assist it through schools and post offices; organized society
does that to the extent to which it is done, and the Land-owning interests
contribute nothing toward it other than a part of what they exact from
Labor.80
As between Labor interests and Land-owning interests the arrows can be made
to run only in the one direction.
80 See ante, pp. 12, 13, and 14.
Now, suppose that as productive methods improve, the exactions of
the Land-owning interests so expand — so enlarge the drain from Labor — as
to make it increasingly difficult for any of the workers to obtain the
Land they need in order to satisfy the demands made upon them for the kind
of Wealth they produce. Would it then be much of a problem to determine
the cause of poverty or to explain hard times? Assuredly not.
It would be plain that poverty and hard times are due to obstacles placed
by Land-owning interests in the way of Labor's access to Land.
We thus see that in the civilized state as well as in the primitive, the
fundamental cause of poverty is the divorce of Labor from Land. 81 But the
manner in which that divorce is accomplished in the civilized state remains
to be explained.
... read the book
Nic Tideman: Basic Tenets of the
Incentive Taxation Philosophy
The Proper
Disposition of Returns to Different Factors of Production
The idea that the rent of land is properly collected by
governments is an example of the more general idea that it is
important to distinguish the different "factors of production"
identified by classical political economy. The return to each factor
has a proper destination.
- The contributions of
human abilities to productive efforts are called "labor," the return to labor is
called "wages," and the
appropriate recipients of wages are those whose labor contributes to
productive activities.
- The contributions of past human products to productive
efforts are called "capital,"
the return to capital is called "interest,"
and the appropriate recipients of interest are those who past saving
made the creation of capital possible.
- The contributions of government-assigned opportunities to
the productive process are called "land,"
the return to land is called "rent,"
and the appropriate recipient of rent is the public treasury.
Replacing Existing
Taxes
When we say that the appropriate recipient of rent is the public
treasury, it should be understood that this is not in addition to
existing sources of public revenue, but rather instead of existing
sources of public revenue.
- Those who contribute
labor to productive processes should be allowed to keep the wages that
result from their labor.
- Those whose saving makes the creation of capital possible
should be allowed to keep the interest that accrues from the use of
capital.
- But there is no one who has a corresponding claim to the
return to land. This is the reason that fees for the use of land and
other opportunities assigned by government ought to be the primary
source of government revenue.
While one might call such fees
"taxes," we consider that
designation inappropriate, because the word "tax" connotes an
exaction from someone of something to which he or she has a just
claim, and we deny that there are such just claims with respect to
land. We expect that the collection of fees for the full value of
opportunities assigned by governments would provide adequate revenue
for all necessary government expenditures.... Read
the whole article
Mason Gaffney: Full
Employment, Growth And Progress On A Small Planet:
Relieving Poverty While Healing The Earth
Labor is dignified. Today it is
common to nod to this idea, at least
for public display. In George’s time it was more novel: many
socialites equated labor, especially manual labor, with shame, and
union labor with dangerous revolution. They excluded laborers from
their clubs. George’s allies led in proclaiming the first Labor
Day. George was a union member, and ran for public office with union
support.
George did not give equal dignity to saving, in
his theory and
oratory. In his policy prescriptions he did, however – an
anomaly I discuss next. Read the whole article
Mason Gaffney: George's
Economics of Abundance: Replacing dismal choices
with practical resolutions and synergies
Georgist policy harmonizes
collectivism and individalism; government and the market; common rights
and private tenure. It has been called "commons without tragedy,"
because it lets common-access resources like fisheries and open ranges
be closed off, without destroying common rights. The principle is
simple and basic. Common lands, with
open access, become overcrowded. Optimal management calls for
restricting entry and usage. Entry is limited by issuing licenses (or
leases, permits, concessions, possessory interests, etc.). However,
instead of giving these away gratis, as is the current practice, they
are leased out annually to the highest bidder. Thus, those excluded are
compensated, while those included get only what they pay for.
As to land
already in private tenure, taxation asserts common rights to the income
of that land, without impairing private tenure rights. Indeed,
private tenure is strengthened when the owner can truly say "This is my
land, I pay the taxes on it." Squatters, trespassers, and vandals may
be evicted with a clear conscience: their common rights have been
protected otherwise, through the tax system. Thus, the policy
reconciles common rights and heavy taxation with the free market and
strong private tenure rights.
In
addition, taking tax revenues from land lets capital and labor go
untaxed. Private
property in labor - the basic right of a person to himself, as
posited by John Locke - and private property in capital, the right of a
person to the full value of what he saves, are strengthened. ...
Georgist
policy removes the many big tax wedges between worker and
employer, and employer and customer, and worker and consumable goods. Thus labor can cost the employer
less, while the worker gets more
disposable income after-tax. Many economists inveigh
against the
minimum wage, claiming it overprices labor. It is a matter of
suspicion that they are then silent on the deadly effects of the
payroll tax, which affects workers at all levels. Sales taxes, too,
cut into real wages, yet many of these same economists would raise
sales taxes and introduce VAT. President and Mrs. Clinton now speak
seriously of raising payroll taxes even more, to finance the new
health plan.
There is a high elasticity of
demand for labor. This may be
observed in farming, for example, where landowners have avoided union
wage rates simply by shifting their land from fresh fruits and
vegetables to labor-sparing uses like small grains or cotton.
Conversely, removing the payroll tax burden will move owners to shift
land back into labor-using enterprises. Read the whole article
a synopsis of Robert V. Andelson and James M. Dawsey: From
Wasteland to Promised land:
Liberation Theology for a Post-Marxist World
Beneath all ideologies, there are basic factors and relationships that
underlie economic behavior. To understand the (otherwise inexplicable)
omission of attention to land's economic importance, it is useful to go
back to these basics.
- The term "Land" refers to the whole
material universe, exclusive of people and their products. Not
the creation of human labor, yet essential to labor, it is the raw
material from which all wealth is fashioned. It includes not only soil and minerals, but
water, air, natural vegetation and wildlife, and all natural
opportunities -- even those yet to be discovered. It is a
passive factor of production, yielding wealth only when labor is
applied to it.
- Labor includes
all human powers, mental and physical, used
directly or indirectly to produce goods or to render service in
exchange. Labor is often thought of as work that is done for hire, at
fixed wages, mainly excluded from the risk-taking and decision-making
that is normally classed under the heading of "entrepreneurship". Yet
labor, properly understood, includes all human exertion in production
-- including mental exertion. The payment to labor is called Wages. And
it is important to remember that the payment, or return, to labor does
not include any returns that are the result of monopoly.
- Capital is
the economic term that is most profoundly misunderstood
and confused. For the term to make sense in any systematic analysis of
wealth distribution, we must define capital in its classical sense as
"wealth which is used to aid in further production, instead of being
directly consumed." Since production is not completed until the product
is in the hands of the consumer, products on their way to market, or
"wealth in the course of exchange," are also considered capital.
Now,
the objective of all economic
behavior is the satisfaction of human desires. Human beings always seek to
satisfy their desires with the least exertion: this self-evident
proposition lies at the heart of our concepts of economic value and
exchange. The primary thing needed for satisfaction is, of
course, the tangible things, made from natural resources, that satisfy
human desires and have exchange value. Things that meet these four
fundamental criteria are termed "wealth". But money, bonds, and
mortgages are but claims upon and measures of this value; they are not
the wealth they symbolize.
A clear understanding of these basic definitions points
immediately to
the primacy of land as an economic factor. Human beings have
inescapable material needs of food, clothing and shelter. Regardless of
how long a chain of exchanges they may pass through in a modern
economy, these things ultimately have their source in the land; they
can come from nowhere else. Human
beings need land in order to live. But if we must pay rent to a private
land "owner" for access to the gifts of nature, it amounts to being
charged a fee for our very right to live. Read the whole synopsis
Peter Barnes: Capitalism
3.0 — Chapter 10: What You Can Do (pages 155-166)
To build Capitalism 3.0, we each have unique roles to play. I therefore address
the final pages of this book to a variety of people whose participation
is critical. ...
WAGE EARNERS
You had it good for a while. Thanks to labor unions, you lifted yourselves
into the middle class. You got paid vacations, forty-hour workweeks, time-and-half
for overtime, health insurance, a pension, and most of all, job security.
Even companies without unions paid well and offered lifetime employment if
you wanted it. There was a social contract, if not a legal one, between employers,
workers, and communities. This was America’s version of the welfare
state, and if you were part of it, it wasn’t bad. But those days are
dust.
In today’s global marketplace, capital moves at the speed of light,
and you’re just a cost to be minimized. What management seeks — what
capital demands — is more profit next quarter. Did you give the best
years of your life to Acme Inc.? Too bad. Nothing boosts the bottom line
faster than downsizing, outsourcing, or playing games with your pension fund.
And forget about help from the union; it’s toothless now. We’re
all on our own.
What can you do? Truthfully, not much. In the era of global capital, your
form of income — wages — is at a serious competitive disadvantage.
But over time, things can get better. The way out — for your kids,
if not for you — is through a new version of capitalism that gives
you (and everyone else) property income from a share of common wealth. That
share is your birthright. It can’t be downsized or outsourced.
It pays some dividends in cash, and others in no-fuss health care, free
Internet access, healthy food, clean air, and lots of places to go fishing.
So claim your birthright, and your children’s. Claim it in living rooms,
at church, in barbershops, and hair salons. This is how movements begin.
... read
the whole chapter
Gems from George, a themed collection of
excerpts from the writings of Henry George (with links to sources)
THE aggregate produce of the labor of a savage tribe is small, but each
member is capable of an independent life. He can build his own habitation,
hew out or stitch together his own canoe, make his own clothing, manufacture
his own weapons, snares, tools and ornaments. He has all the knowledge of
nature possessed by his tribe — knows what vegetable productions are
fit for food, and where they maybe found; knows the habits and resorts of
beasts, birds, fishes and insects; can pilot himself by the sun or the stars,
by the turning of blossoms or the mosses on the trees; is, in short, capable
of supplying all his wants. He may be cut off from his fellows and still
live; and thus possesses an independent power which makes him a free contracting
party in his relations to the community of which he is a member.
Compare with this savage the laborer in the lowest ranks of civilized society,
whose life is spent in producing but one thing, or oftener but the infinitesimal
part of one thing, out of the multiplicity of things that constitute the
wealth of society and go to supply even the most primitive wants; who not
only cannot make even the tools required for his work, but often works with
tools that he does not own, and can never hope to own. Compelled to even
closer and more continuous labor than the savage, and gaining by it no more
than the savage gets — the mere necessaries of life — he loses
the independence of the savage. He is not only unable to apply his own powers
to the direct satisfaction of his own wants, but, without the concurrence
of many others, he is unable to apply them indirectly to the satisfaction
of his wants. He is a mere link in an enormous chain of producers and consumers,
helpless to separate himself, and helpless to move, except as they move.
The worse his position in society, the more dependent is he on society; the
more utterly unable does he become to do anything for himself. The very power
of exerting his labor for the satisfaction of his wants passes from his own
control, and may be taken away or restored by the actions of others, or by
general causes over which he has no more influence than he has over the motions
of the solar system. The primeval curse comes to be looked upon as a boon,
and men think, and talk, and clamor, and legislate as though monotonous manual
labor in itself were a good and not an evil, an end and not a means. Under
such circumstances, the man loses the essential quality of manhood — the
godlike power of modifying and controlling conditions. He becomes a slave,
a machine, a commodity — a thing, in some respects, lower than the
animal.
I am no sentimental admirer of the savage state. I do not get my ideas of
the untutored children of nature from Rousseau, or Chateaubriand, or Cooper.
I am conscious of its material and mental poverty, and its low and narrow
range. I believe that civilization is not only the natural destiny of man,
but the enfranchisement, elevation, and refinement of all his powers, and
think that it is only in such moods as may lead him to envy the cud-chewing
cattle, that a man who is free to the advantages of civilization could look
with regret upon the savage state. But, nevertheless, I think no one who
will open his eyes to the facts, can resist the conclusion that there are
in the heart of our civilization large classes with whom the veriest savage
could not afford to exchange. It is my deliberate opinion that if, standing
on the threshold of being, one were given the choice of entering life as
a Terra del Fuegan, a black fellow of Australia, an Esquimaux in the Arctic
Circle, or among the lowest classes in such a highly civilized country as
Great Britain, he would make infinitely the better choice in selecting the
lot of the savage. For those classes who in the midst of wealth are condemned
to want, suffer all the privations of the savage, without his sense of personal
freedom; they are condemned to more than his narrowness and littleness, without
opportunity for the growth of his rude virtues; if their horizon is wider,
it is but to reveal blessings that they cannot enjoy. — Progress & Poverty — Book
V, Chapter 2: The Problem Solved: The Persistence of Poverty Amid Advancing
Wealth
THE term Labor includes all human exertion in the production of wealth,
whatever its mode. In common parlance we often speak of brain labor and hand
labor as though they were entirely distinct kinds of exertion, and labor
is often spoken of as though it involved only muscular exertion. But in reality
any form of labor, that is to say, any form of human exertion in the production
of wealth above that which cattle may be applied to doing, requires the human
brain as truly as the human hand, and would be impossible without the exercise
of mental faculties on the part of the laborer. Labor in fact is only physical
in external form. In its origin it is mental or on strict analysis spiritual. — The
Science of Political Economy unabridged: Book III, Chapter 16: The Production
of Wealth, The Second Factor of Production — Labor • abridged:
Part III, Chapter 10: Order of the Three Factors of Production
IT seems to us that your Holiness misses its real significance in intimating
that Christ in becoming the son of a carpenter and Himself working as a carpenter
showed merely that "there is nothing to be ashamed of in seeking one's
bread by labor." To say that is almost like saying that by not robbing
people He showed that there is nothing to be ashamed of in honesty. If you
will consider how true in any large view is the classification of all men
into working-men, beggar-men and thieves, you will see that it was morally
impossible that Christ during His stay on earth should have been anything
else than a working-man, since He who came to fulfill the law must by deed
as well as word obey God's law of labor.
See how fully and how beautifully Christ's life on earth illustrated this
law.. Entering our earthly life in the weakness of infancy, as it is appointed
that all should enter it, He lovingly took what in the natural order is
lovingly rendered, the sustenance, secured by labor, that one generation
owes to its immediate successors. Arrived at maturity, He earned His own
subsistence by that common labor in which the majority of men must and
do earn it. Then passing to a higher — to the very highest-sphere
of labor. He earned His subsistence by the teaching of moral and spiritual
truths, receiving its material wages in the love offerings of grateful
hearers, and not refusing the costly spikenard with which Mary anointed
his feet. So, when He chose His disciples, He did not go to land-owners
or other monopolists who live on the labor of others but to common laboring
men. And when He called them to a higher sphere of labor and sent them
out to teach moral and spiritual truths He told them to take, without condescension
on the one hand, or sense of degradation on the other, the loving return
for such labor, saying to them that the "laborer is worthy of his
hire," thus showing, what we hold, that all labor does not consist
in what is called manual labor, but that whoever helps to add to the material,
intellectual, moral, or spiritual fulness of life is also a laborer. -
The Condition of Labor
NOR should it be forgotten that the investigator, the philosopher, the teacher,
the artist, the poet, the priest, though not engaged in the production of
wealth, are not only engaged in the production of utilities and satisfactions
to which the production of wealth is only a means, but by acquiring and diffusing
knowledge, stimulating mental powers and elevating the moral sense, may greatly
increase the ability to produce wealth. For man does not live by bread alone.
He is not an engine, in which so much fuel gives so much power. On a capstan
bar or a topsail halyard a good song tells like muscle, and a "Marseillaise" or
a "Battle Hymn of the Republic" counts for bayonets. A hearty laugh,
a noble thought, a perception of harmony, may add to the power of dealing
even with material things.
He who by any exertion of mind or body adds to the aggregate of enjoyable
wealth, increases the sum of human knowledge or gives to human life higher
elevation or greater fulness — he is, in the large meaning of the words,
a "producer," a "working-man," a "laborer," and
is honestly earning honest wages. But he who without doing aught to make
mankind richer, wiser, better, happier, lives on the toil of others — he,
no matter by what name of honor he may be I called, or how lustily the priests
of Mammon may swing their censers before him, is in the last analysis but
a beggarman or a thief. — Protection or Free Trade, Chapter 7 econlib
... go to "Gems from George"
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
Essential Documents
pertinent to this theme:
|
|