How can one reconcile moral objection to wage slavery with the societial need for money?

Question

If, within the framework of modern society, individuals depend on employment for survival, then how can one survive without breaking either their moral aversion to wage slavery or their moral aversion to moving their financial burdens onto others?

Thinkers such as Alan Watts or Terence McKenna have said that by following one's passion, one will find a way to make money. This makes sense to me, but many passions require an initial financial investment, such as attending graduate school.

Edit: Let me be clear, I'm looking for an answer for how to morally earn income and also how to move into such a position. I'm not looking for specific personal advice, but something that can be broadly applied to individuals. There are, of course, changes society could implement, such as universal basic income, but I'm seeking answers for the individual.

Answer 1

The need for money is part of an existing social contract. If you do need money, you have signed onto that contract. You cannot be both within and outside the contract. You need to set it aside entirely if you find its central tenets morally objectionable.

Money is not what you need. What you need is a means of using your own attributes to support yourself. If you want to morally disconnect from capitalism, that cannot involve money, since the value of money is clearly embedded in the system as a whole.

There are people who have taken this seriously and established a parallel social contract that insulates a sense of value based upon some other criterion from the need for money. Communities like Ammana and Oneida, various tax-resisting Quaker Meetings during the Vietnam War, and the Shaker communities are historical examples. A living example is the Rainbow Family of Living Light.

Such communities do not use money among themselves. To manage this, they have to maintain a buffer between themselves and the economic community. They usually institutionalize this buffer in the form of 'sovereign' land in unincorporated areas that is never allowed to have a monetary value assigned to it. It is too far from public services to involve real estate tax, and it is either free of claim because it is hereditary and has not been sold for an extended period, or it is kept in an endless limbo of mortgage that is never allowed to build equity, so it is insulated from the income tax. It is held in common and not passed down, so it avoids inheritance, which is the other point land that is not sold might be assigned monetary value and have taxes extracted.

This freezes this part of the means of production outside the capitalist system. Those who hold this land may or may not allow you to join them on the assumption you will find away to contribute to the welfare of the community as a whole and that will offset the work involved in maintaining the insulation from capitalism.

Since the rest of our social contract is tied to taxes, this involves leaving the legal system and having some alternative means of government, that you may or may not find adequate, logical or fair. So to some degree there is a risk of a more genuine form of slavery. But you are generally free to leave with nothing and return to the capitalist system through charitable institutions.

Answer 2

If... individuals depend on employment for survival, then how can one survive without breaking either their moral aversion to wage slavery or their moral aversion to moving their financial burdens onto others?

The premise that employment equals a type of slavery restricts the possible roads to survival. To remain moral, a person would have to (1) find employment which is not slavery or (2) find a source of wealth which does not involve shifting a personal burden onto someone else.

My suggestion is as follows. First, isolate that aspect of employment that makes it similar to slavery. Then, organize a business, commune, or other association that produces wealth, but drops the morally offensive aspect of employment.

Given the assumption that opens the question, that is as far as I can take an answer.

Answer 3

The problem is in the question.

Deciding that working for someone is slavery may be your opinion, but it is a subjective opinion, and not necessarily indicative of objective reality.

People have been doing work in order to survive for as long as there have been people, and at no point during that time did these people get to dictate what they did anywhere outside of the system they were born into.

In other words, as human societies have progressed, the nature of work has taken on slowly evolving concrete forms that make up the reality of the population. At any point in time, there can be no other way.

Within that context, I don't see a reason why 'ethics' or 'ideals' should enter anywhere into the equation. Following your passion is a great concept, but if it leads you into a place within the system you live in where you can't find work or support yourself, what have you gained?

I'd think when it comes to work one should first attempt to understand the market in which they live, and then further how they would best like to use it to their advantage.

Answer 4

You have proposed two moral principles: 1) You don't want to be a "wage slave" (as you define it). 2) You don't want to live on the resources of others. There are two assumptions a) working for yourself is not readily available and b) you want to survive. In the context of the assumptions, the two moral principles are, on their face, inconsistent -- a common human problem. We usually try to live with the inconsistency, using one principle at one time and the other at another depending on the situation or our emotional state. Alternatively, you could choose one and jettison the other. In doing so you will have to compare their value. Which principle does the most good? Which one can you live with? Under what circumstances would you be able to change your mind? As is typical, I have answered a question with more questions.

Answer 5

You could look into squatting, and how you might find food and otherwise stay healthy in such an environment.

I imagine you'll find some share your sympathies, for what it's worth.

Which you seem to have defined conservatively enough to not be self contradictory. Not sure what Watts would say about your dilemma, but I don't think I see how making money from your passion is any different to investing money, perhaps a loan, to pursue your passion, given that what you earn would then be supporting you to pursue it, and you e.g. pay back the loan. I don't see how loans are slavery if they're paid back with work you love.

Which was the reason for my facetiousness in the comments: if you're just saying you don't want to do certain forms of work but must be self sufficient this is not really a philosophical question.

Answer 6

If, within the framework of modern society, individuals depend on employment for survival, then how can one survive without breaking either their moral aversion to wage slavery or their moral aversion to moving their financial burdens onto others?

People who work for a wage aren't slaves and slavery is not an apt metaphor. A person must have food, shelter etc. to survive. Nobody is obliged to provide you with these goods. If you maintain otherwise, then you are saying the person who can provide those goods should be forced to work to provide you with them: he is your slave. The person who can provide those goods should do so only if he has been persuaded to do so by argument, or by receiving goods he wants in exchange.

One of the options for obtaining goods that you can exchange for food and shelter is that you can agree to do stuff another person asks you to do in exchange for money to be paid in a short time - a wage. In order to pay a wage somebody has to gather the resources necessary to pay that wage and do without them for the period required to produce something that can be sold.

Some people say the employee and employer have unequal bargaining power and that this is unfair in some way. A person looking for wage work can consider an offer and negotiate or reject the offer. He need not accept the first figure that the employer proposes. There are books on salary negotiation if you don't think that's an option. If an employee wasn't providing value nobody would want to hire him. If the employee fails to think about this issue and look for information about how to use it, that's the employee's responsibility. The employer is not obligated to do this for the employee. There are other options, like starting a small business, or a large business. Promoting the idea that employers have power over employees is a vicious lie. That lie demonises employers and claims that employees are not moral agents who can make choices about what they value and how they want to obtain it.

A commenter below complains about employers treating employees as a means to an end. An employer does not treat an employee like a cog in a machine because the employee can resign. The employer would then have to find a replacement. However, the employer won't pay someone to watch cat videos on youtube. The employer will demand and should demand that the employee will do something of value to him to get paid.

The current system has many defects, like lots of burdensome govt regulation that stop people from starting some kinds of businesses, but that's govt slavery not wage slavery. If you complain about wage slavery, then you have a beef with the laws of physics since they don't require cooked roast chickens to fly into your mouth with no effort on your part.

It would be a good idea to learn some political economy. See "Time will run back" by Hazlitt for an explanation of the relevant economic issues that you might find interesting:

https://mises.org/library/time-will-run-back-0

A short explanation of the moral issues can be found in "The virtue of selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

Answer 7

I would like to point out that a small but significant minority of people do not fit your description. There are people who live entirely on the income of inherited or invested wealth. There are people who are genuinely self-employed and running a profitable business. There are people who are content to live on the provision of the state or charity. As for the rest of us, I recognise the metaphor of wage slavery. Also, pension slavery for those unfortunate enough not to save enough for old age. All workers spend but some also save. Prudent investment can result in a step change in fortune. So we all have options, but some have very few and are not helped to realise them. Notwithstanding what you said about specific measures, I favour universal basic income, micro-finance, and mutual and co-operative companies.