Marx In The News

We have been talking extensively about Marx's ideas about wage and wage labor, as well as the minimum wage and cost of living. We have reached an understanding that, according to Marx, the wage is determined by the cost of living and for reproduction. Having said this, I came across an article on the Voice of America news website from January 18, 2009. The title of this article is "Nigerian Labor Unions Seek Minimum Wage Increase", written by Abuja.
The article speaks about how the two labor unions in Nigeria were attempting to increase the minimum wage from 5,500 naira, or $40, to $350. It speaks about how at the current minimum wage in Nigeria, which is $40 and has not been changed or reviewed for the past 8 years, is not enough to even fulfill their "basic necessities of life" (Abuja). This aspect relates to the Marx reading "Wage Labour and Capital" because here we see that with the minimum wage, Nigerians are not even being paid what is needed for their cost of living, which I think in turn would not facilitate their ability to reproduce if they are not able to secure their own basic needs to continue living, nontheless another person's.
The article also goes on to mention that "thousands of Nigerians have already lost their jobs in recent months, and government officials warn there could be further layoffs across all sectors if unions ask employers for more money" (Abuja). This quote, in my opinion, strengthens the idea that Marx argues in the reading about the creation of competition amongst the workers. I think that given this quote, we can infer that these layoffs will create more competition among these workers, as we spoke about in class, and will cause the employers to attempt to pay them less since there will be more people willing to depreciate their labor to simply get some sort of income. This is an interesting issue though because, in my opinion, in the unions trying to get a higher pay for the workers, they can also give rise to the amount of unemployment increasing, as well as competition, just as Marx mentions.
So, we know that as Marx mentions, the minimum wage is determined by the cost of living and reproduction, which, according to this article , is not being met with the minimum wage because they can not even secure their own basic neccessities with this amount in Nigeria because of the inflation going on and the "devaluation of the local currency" (Abuja). To finalize, I feel that Marx would be upset at the fact that the minimum wage does not cover even their cost of living, but also the labor union aspect of it, because as we mentioned in class, he would be a supporter of Co-op environment as opposed to the corporation, because yes you are negotiating your terms of work through your union, but even if you are getting paid more, as Marx would say and as we mentioned in class, you are still a slave just a better paid one.

Locke In The News

In the past week, we have been discussing John Locke's ideas about labor and property. The concensus that was reached seemed to be that Locke is a strong supporter of acquiring as much property as one wants, and we established that property can be classified as anything that one can take from the earth and mix our labor into it, which in turn makes it our own. This can also be said in regards to money, Locke believes that money represents one's own stored labor, which can be used in the purchase of goods, or simply stored, since money is not something that can spoil; therefore, we can acquire as many posessions and as much money as we please.
There was an article on the New York Times website titled "Exxon Grew as Oil Industry Contracted", written by Jad Mouawad. The article speaks about Exxon taking advantage of the fall in the oil industries profits in 2009, due to the fall in oil prices "as consumers cut spending and businesses shed jobs" (Mouawad). Even though Exxon Mobil Corp was also hurt by the fall in oil prices, they were not hurt as much as some of their smaller rivals in the industry; therefore, they took advantage of the weaknesses and bought out many of these small rivals in order to expand their company and "acquire promising assets" (Mouawad). They hope that this will in turn produce bigger profits once the economy bounces back. They also mention that due to new drilling technology, they have found new oil reserves and have begun new projects in countries like Africa, Iraq, and Ghana, which can produce promising profits in the future. This article, in my opinion, strengthens Locke's argument about acquiring property and money because, in regards to Exxon, they are using their money to acquire these smaller oil companies and growing their industry, which according to Locke is permissible since anything that one acquires through money can be called our own because money represents one's own labor. Locke would also be in agreement with Exxon expanding their assets to generate more profit, because Locke would be in favor of acquiring money and property without limit. In this case, I would agree that the expansion of the Exxon is permissible because they are a corporation and therefore, making profit is their sole purpose. But on the other hand, can we really be content with allowing corporations to acquire as much land, money, and any other assets, without limit?