- Feb 19, 2021
- 3,478
- 8,312
No, you're comparing a hypothetical service to a material service. Sammy isn't exploiting the bar because the bar doesn't pay her. She's paid entirely through tips. If the customers didn't want Sammy getting the beers for them then they wouldn't tip her, along with optional services rendered. The only mildly exploitive aspect of Sammy's work is when she's selling her underwear for a profit. The rest of it is not.But the point still stands that she isn't producing anything with her efforts, except maybe cum stains on the floor. She's providing a service, certainly, by receiving payment for doing something so the people she's doing it for won't have to go through the effort of doing it themselves...
...Which is exactly what Oskar is doing. In case of a major repair Sammy notifies Oskar, who then seeks out a contractor and makes arrangements, rather than Sammy having to put her effort in over a week or two, then negotiating with her flatmates to put enough money together to repair it (which is harder if only a few apartments are impacted by the necessary repair) leading to arguments and, eventually, a breakdown of negotiations and the place looking like Haven a few years down the line. That is what you pay for and, unlike bar work, it is a previously agreed upon sum rather than 'whatever they feel like'.
There's another difference. It's a reasonable expectation that someone could call a contractor when something in their house breaks. It's not a reasonable expectation that someone could go behind a bar they don't own and pour themself a pint. If the amount they're paying in rent is enough to cover any maintenance costs then they're perfectly capable of assuming any maintenance costs in lieu of rent. Oskar is providing nothing in your example, he's taking their money to do what they could do themselves and pocketing the difference.
By your logic, you are being exploited by 9-1-1 operators because a portion of your taxes is going towards paying them, despite them not producing anything and you personally haven't had to call them in the past couple of months. But they are there when you need them, and it is that availability as a service that you are paying them for.
Read above. Not all labour needs to be transformative for it to provide value if it enables transformative labour to continue and or facilitates its compensation. The miniscule tax load of 911 operators was well worth it when my dad needed an ambulance for a heart attack a couple years ago. The tax load that paid for the doctors and hospital was well worth it when he had to stay there for a few weeks feeding and housing him, when they gave him a battery of tests and when they operated on him for a grand total of $60 for only the ambulance. Care workers provide value by enabling transformative labour to exist. Without them we'd lose a worker every time one of them got seriously ill. Oscar does not provide that service, he does nothing that his tenants are perfectly capable of doing themselves. My dad couldn't have marched into a hospital on his own and performed his own open heart surgery.Administrative work isn't transformative labour so it doesn't create value. Assuming it's productive it's still important work to get the TV out to customers to use. So an administrator who works in front of the computer, on the phones and in the warehouse getting items shipped out so they can be sold and the labourers be paid isn't exploitive, they deserve a fair share of the surplus value. Some dude who sits on a piece of land, does nothing with it and charges people to use it is not offering anything of productive or transformative value.