A friendly amendment to Smith's description of wage and price determination of labor concerning identity---- Mendoza
Adam Smith did a great job of describing the wages of labor. Smith's description included sections seen in modern society. I wanted to show his context in the intersectional struggles of immigration, race, and gender, specifically from what I have seen in many Mexican households.
One aspect that Smith highlights is the power the masters hold in wages. The reality is that "The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible" (68). While Smith highlighted times when negotiations/contracts could work for the "laboring poor," I wanted to show the nuance in citizenship. Smith included the point that many times low-income folks don't have a choice when "choosing" bad wages, given the universal need to make a living. My initial thought was on women who immigrate to the United States to support their children and family back in their home state (these families are called transnational families). When immigrants come into the country they are seen as undocumented, which is another phrase for "legally nonexistent." Given such a viewpoint, undocumented mothers struggle to navigate the wage system, which is seen through international remittances. For example, given the current exclusion of women of color from well-paying jobs, and the need for documentation to ensure a beneficial job, studies show that women typically have more consistent, but less amounted remittances for their families back home. The issue lies in their ability to ask for more and to demand their human rights because they are invisible in the legal system.
Additionally, Smith brought up that "law can never regulate [wages] properly," which is seen through the daily life of immigrants. Specifically, undocumented women of color from Latin America and their invisibility make them more prominent victims of human rights violations. For example, undocumented mothers have to deal with earning less while working in harsh/unethical conditions in dangerous jobs, limiting access to housing aid and financial aid, and mental anguish from excessive enforcement practices like deportation. With this example, I would consider adding a friendly amendment to the section where Smith discusses how the "price of labor" is determined. Smith states that the price of labor is determined by the "different abilities of the workmen [and] the easiness or hardness of the masters" (79). I would advocate adding the identity of the laborer, which would embody the intersectionality of struggles, such as undocumented women of color.
By having this addition, Smith could provide more context for some of the reasons for the lack of choice when having to go through harsh laboring for the minimum payment.
ReplyDeleteHey Luis! I really liked how you connected Smith to modern society and intersectionality. I wanted to add on to this discussion on wage labor. I think it's important to recognize Smith’s argument behind the wages of labor and how they are chosen. He states that the common wages of labor depends on “the contract usually made between those two parties [the employer and the workmen], whole interests are by no means the same” (68). As such, both parties will negotiate to either raise or lower the wages of labor, coming to a price that is agreeable to both.
Smith recognizes that there is a potential for the masters or employers to exploit their workers by entering in “particular combinations to sink the wages of labor” (69). He states that in these scenarios of negotiation, masters often have the advantage because of the bargaining power that comes from holding the capital. However, later in the section, Smith states that in these scenarios, laborers also hold an advantage in negotiating the rate of wages because of competition. Essentially, as the demand for labor increases but a low supply of labor, wages must increase to incentivize one to work. This naturally occurring competition resulting from supply and demand allows laborers to have power in their wages.
However, I see your argument that those who are undocumented or have intersectional identities will be excluded from his theory and therefore, from having an advantage over their employers. In fact, I think that they are in an entirely different class of labor and therefore, of wages. To go back to your point on how undocumented mothers struggle to navigate the wage system, I think it's because employers hold an unchecked power over them. Since undocumented individuals are not authorized to work in a country, they often turn to informal jobs that pay less than the wage labor rate. Because of this, they are more likely to be exploited and abused by their employers. I think you bring up a good point of adding the identity of the laborer to embody the struggles unique to those who are most disadvantaged to Smith’s idea of wage labor. I’d love to discuss this in more detail during seminar and how we can better account for how power and identity intersect the current labor market.
Hi Luis and Shaira! I think this modern application of Smith’s argument is an interesting discussion. I wanted to bring in another component that Smith discusses that I feel also applies to the conversation about undocumented women of color.
ReplyDeleteSmith argues that demand for laborers increases as national wealth grows. He says when a workman “has got more stock than what is sufficient to purchase the materials of his own work, and to maintain himself till he can dispose of it, he naturally employs one or more journeymen with the surplus, in order to make a profit by their work.” When an individual has more wealth than he can put to use buying goods, he uses it to employ another person and gain more wealth. He goes on to say that the countries that are growing the fastest have the highest wages for laborers. When there is growth in national wealth the demand for workers goes up and the competition drives wages up.
I think this further description of how wages are determined can have an important impact on the wages and livelihoods of undocumented women of color. Depending on the wealth and growth of the nation (in this example the US) the conditions and wages may change. During the times of growth these women may have an increase in their ability to negotiate or receive higher wages. I think context and timing is an important part of Smith’s argument about wages and it presents a way for those will less power to step up in times when they can offer something that is in high demand.
Hi Luis,
ReplyDeleteWith Okin fresh in mind, I want to consider a broader feminist consideration of Smith's Wealth of Nations. I think you provide a great investigation into intersectionality and Smith, but I want to consider the worth of unpaid labor and how some of Smith's ideas rely on such work.
But, Smith seems to neglect the underlying informal economy which allows for such specialization, namely, the unpaid work of women in the domestic field. Consider Smith's thoughts on the butcher and benevolence: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens" (Smith 27) Here, Smith describes how individuals do not expect for their dinner to be provided out of expectations for benevolence. Rather, the butcher provides meat because the customer can help the former's self-interest and provide what the butcher wants in exchange for some food.
In this quote, the impact of domestic labor is less inherent. While Smith argues that only beggars depend on benevolence for food, the labor of wives and mothers seems to push against this claim. Self-interest drives the butcher to act out of self-interest rather than benevolence, but it is doubtless that the butcher often relies on the benevolence of the women in his life. For the butcher to have the ability to go to work each day, he likely relies on his wife or daughter to watch the children, maintain the home, etc. But, Smith does not recognize this underlying economy of female labor, which permits the butcher to bargain and trade (in his self-interest) in the first place.
We have to question exactly why unpaid domestic laborers like wives and women are doing their work. Self Interest does not properly explain their actions. While one could argue that women (parents) act in self interest raising their children out of expectation for care when they grow past the age that they can work and function on their own, this argument undermines the love that parents can feel for their children. Instead, benevolence seems like a proper motivation for this domestic labor.
To directly address the scenario Smith considers with the butcher, I pose a question: When the butcher returns from work, does he not expect a meal to be made by his wife or mother? Does he not expect that, out of benevolence, a woman in his life will have a meal on the table by the time he arrives home? It does not seem like the woman would act out of her self-interest, and not love, to make the butcher's dinner. When considering informal domestic labor, which Smith does not meaningfully connect with his view of economic activity, there appear to be instances where labor occurs because of benevolence, not only because of the self-interest of parties in the trade.
As I was considering this, I came across a really interesting book, Who Made Adam Smith's Dinner which discusses how Smith's mother made his dinner for essentially his whole life. Was that out of self-interest rather than benevolence?