Marx

On Monday February 15, 2010, I came across a headline that read, "Use of temps may no longer signal permanent hiring," the article said that when employers hire temporary staff after a recession, it's long been seen as a sign they'll soon hire permanent workers. Companies have hired more temps for four straight months. Yet they remain reluctant to make permanent hires because of doubts about the recovery's durability. Even companies that are boosting production seem inclined to get by with their existing worker, and begin to hire temporary staff. For years, economists have regarded increased hiring of temp workers as a bridge between no hiring and healthy job creation. It meant employers would soon expand their permanent payrolls to keep up with rising customer demand.

After reading this headline I quickly thought of Marx and his views of estranged labor, which he identifies as a large pool of unemployed people, are exchangeable and the worker is a commodity. I believe that this article identifies those views of estranged labor substantially. While hiring temporary employees the employers does not have to pay the same high cost of wages as they would have to if they hired permanent employees. Even while some of the companies of increasing production they fail to hire permanent workers so that they can keep the cost down and only pay the minimum wage and what a skilled permanent employee would make.

According to Marx with the companies exchanging the temporary workers for new temporary workers they are creating competition amongst capitalist, which creates division of labor and rise of innovation which then creates joblessness. As long as there is such high demands for a job amongst the unemployed the companies will not have to conform to hiring permanent employees any time soon and will continue to pay minimum wage and produce a higher profit for the things that they are manufacturing.

Locke

On Sunday I watched an episode of the fox television show American dad. In this episode the father Stan had views that I felt related to Locke. Stan told his family that he did not like how america has turned out since democrats have been in office. Stan told his family that he did not like how america was helping people and bailing out everyone. Stan's wife told him that she was going to help out at the local soup kitchen, which he disapproved of because he said that those were very capable people of helping themselves if they put in the same amount of work that he and his family did. So Stan went to the soup kitchen to stop his wife, and as she was serving someone soup Stan interrupted and said I stirred that soup therefore it is mine. This ideology that Stan had very much coincides with the Locke's ideology of property.

Locke's theory of property is that the only thing that you own is your body, your body produces labor therefore whatever you put your labor into that becomes your property. Therefore what Locke is stating is that everything on earth is of common use and belongs to everyone, it is not until someone puts their labor into an object and that object becomes that person's property. Thus in this case the only thing that Stan owned was his body and his body produced labor by stirring the soup therefore that soup became Stan's property. Although the soup kitchen is a communal place for homeless or needy families, if Stan wanted to charge the people at the soup kitchen for stirring the soup than he could simply because he instilled his labor into it. In Locke's theory his ideology is that money is a form of stored labor that a person has and can be used in order to gain property.

In life we encounter Locke's theory daily, for example, when we purchase vegetables from a local farmer, those vegetables become ours, although the farmer has put his labor into the crops we used our money to purchase them which makes it our property. Can you think of something that you do that relates to Locke's theory?

Aristotle in the News

According to Aristotle he believes that there is the greater pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends, guest, and/or companions, with this being said there is no greater time then right now to adopt this belief into ones life, with the earthquake that occurred in Haiti. It is best to share or give something that you have to someone in need, when a person has the means to share i.e., food, clothing, money, and/or time. When a person gives to someone in need from their heart it is the most fulfilling and pleasurable feeling, and it makes that person that is giving an even more virtuous person, which is something that we all strive to be. In a perfect world everyone would assist the people of Haiti right now in their time of need, however we do not live in a perfect world and there is that thing called reality, which makes us realize that everyone does not strive to be virtuous, caring, and selfless. I can only question that if everyone felt and conducted themselves this way where would we be as a people, considering that we all are have been given something by someone else in life rather it be food, clothing, money, shelter, or even the kind words of inspiration or compliment of someone. Maybe this is what gives us our individuality, and what separates the caring and selfish.