RE: [microsound] McFreedom?

[David Miller <damille@xxxxxxxx>]

yes, exploitation is entirely subjective:

to say that it is exploitative 'when you consider' anything,
is 100% as a result of your perspective on a given situation.

your definition of exploitation therefore, is subject to that perspective:
subjective.

and great, since the growth level of compensation hasn't equalled the growth
level of productivity,
implying that this is inherently wrong is misguided as well.

technological growth alone [even aside from other factors] has aided in
the ability to increase production while maintaining a lower-cost option for
producers.

in a free-market system, producers have that right.
and it works.

i get the sense that you are implying that companies have a moral obligation
or whatever
to their employees to maintain a certain level of compensation, relative to
the growth
of the company.  that's fine: if the company wants to do that.  but since
company growth
can rise or fall, wouldn't that notion of relative
compensation-for-company-growth mean
that if the company starts going bust, the workers would also lose earnings?
the workers would forever be under the cloud of 'how much am i going to be
paid this week?'
i know i would think that that would be a crappy way to live.
rather, the system currently in place, pays its employess according to the
MARKET'S set of standard
pay.

the underlying argument you are making here is one that involves deep social
change.

so let's follow that through.

in socialist economies, you will make a certain amount of money, and because
of the increased
amount of government programs, initiatives, etc - and spending in general,
you'd be paying
WAY WAY more for taxes on your already limited income.
go from say, 25% to something like what, 75%?

just so you can go to the doctor for free once a year.

and let's go even further.

in a communist system, you are placed in a job BY THE GOVERNMENT and are
forced
to work that job.  yet, any benefits of the job are spread across the whole
of the citizenry.
and you see about 10% of the benefits of your work, the same as the lazy
slob next to you
dozing off while you work hard.
equality? sure.  REAL equality? not at all.

historically, the most prosperous economic systems have been ones based upon
free-market systems.
and also historically, the citizens whose countries have a free-market
system have a much higher standard
of living, and are much wealthier as a whole.  these same citizens also have
the ability to
crossover from one class to another, with what little class system there
actually is in these systems.
it's nowhere NEAR that easy in countries whose class systems are more
rigidly defined, largely due to
the economic system in place.

i've already gone on WAY too long for an off topic subject - my apologies
everyone.

***for any further discussion, please email me off-list.***

in closing, to return this somewhat to the subject of music,
let's talk prince, as you have suggested.

when he signed the contract, he signed over the rights.
it really is as simple as the fact that noone forced him to do so: he did so
of his own
free will. it then became the company's product, and him the man behind the
wrench.
the company could do with it what it wanted to.

that's the beauty of independent music companies.  touch and go records, for
example,
has consistently kept the profits 50/50 with the artist, i think with little
fluctuation.
it's been the company's right to do so in the free-market system.
and that's the beauty that we all as independent musicians have access to:
company's that value the artist for artistic reasons and for art's sake:
not [fully] for dollar value.

david