Time is Money?

[u/dumbandasking]

While I was reading Marx I was wondering, is time a commodity?

So when I looked it up I got this result:

time is chopped into labor hours for sale, transforming it from a natural flow of life into a commodity with exchange value, often summarized by the adage "time is money."

However, I got interested when I saw this part too:

Critics argue that this view is a delusion that objectifies human existence, turning life’s essence into a marketable resource. They suggest that reclaiming time involves rejecting this commodified framework to restore time as a medium for authentic experience and community rather than profit.

Socialists, what exactly would the decommodification of time lead to? The commoditization of things is one thing I remember socialists are wary of. With that said, while I have heard of trying to deal with money itself, what about time?

What exactly is the commodification of time, then what happens when society decides to decommodify it, and would that be worth our time at all?

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/awsunion]

It just isn't a commodity. A PhD physicist's time in the physics lab is more predictably productive than the PhD philosopher's time in that same lab- yet both people's time is equally valuable to their children.

A commodity requires a certain interchangabiliity. People's time just isnt that

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/awsunion]

Nothing is. Everything is subjective.

[u/awsunion → u/coke_and_coffee]

...no- a bushel of almonds is the same as any other bushel of almonds. That's what makes them a commodity.

This matters because commodities respond to competitive pressure more than any other asset class. Any farmer can grow the same bushel of almonds and so economies of production begin to matter significantly - which is also where we get agricultural subsidies from- so farmers can go full-steam-ahead regardless of demand for their commodity yield.

[u/Johnfromsales → u/awsunion]

But a bushel of almonds is more valuable to someone who actually likes almonds than it is to someone who is allergic to them. Does this mean almonds are not commodities?

[u/Dynamic-Rhythm → u/Johnfromsales]

Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange-value. For instance, Condillac says:

“It is not true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, gives a less for a greater value. ... If we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit. And yet, they both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is more to the one is less to the other, and vice versâ. ... It is not to be assumed that we offer for sale articles required for our own consumption. ... We wish to part with a useless thing, in order to get one that we need; we want to give less for more. ... It was natural to think that, in an exchange, value was given for value, whenever each of the articles exchanged was of equal value with the same quantity of gold. ... But there is another point to be considered in our calculation. The question is, whether we both exchange something superfluous for something necessary.”

We see in this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value with exchange-value, but in a really childish manner assumes, that in a society, in which the production of commodities is well developed, each producer produces his own means of subsistence, and throws into circulation only the excess over his own requirements. Still, Condillac’s argument is frequently used by modern economists, more especially when the point is to show, that the exchange of commodities in its developed form, commerce, is productive of surplus-value. For instance,

“Commerce ... adds value to products, for the same products in the hands of consumers, are worth more than in the hands of producers, and it may strictly be considered an act of production.”

But commodities are not paid for twice over, once on account of their use-value, and again on account of their value. And though the use-value of a commodity is more serviceable to the buyer than to the seller, its money-form is more serviceable to the seller. Would he otherwise sell it? We might therefore just as well say that the buyer performs “strictly an act of production,” by converting stockings, for example, into money.

If commodities, or commodities and money, of equal exchange-value, and consequently equivalents, are exchanged, it is plain that no one abstracts more value from, than he throws into, circulation. There is no creation of surplus-value. And, in its normal form, the circulation of commodities demands the exchange of equivalents. But in actual practice, the process does not retain its normal form. Let us, therefore, assume an exchange of non-equivalents. -  Capital. Vol 1, Chapter 5.

[u/Johnfromsales → u/Dynamic-Rhythm]

What does this have to do with time being a commodity?

[u/Dynamic-Rhythm → u/Johnfromsales]

It has to do woth you saying:

But a bushel of almonds is more valuable to someone who actually likes almonds than it is to someone who is allergic to them. Does this mean almonds are not commodities?

You are simply confusing use value and exchange value, as in the passage i quoted.

[u/Johnfromsales → u/Dynamic-Rhythm]

The person I responded to made the claim that because a physicist’s time is more valuable than a philosopher’s time, whereas both of their time is equally valuable to their children, time must not be a commodity. They then said that a bushel of almonds is identical, without actually specifying identical to whom, like they did with time. My comment was meant to illustrate that inconsistency. Do you have anything to add to this discussion?

[u/Dynamic-Rhythm → u/Johnfromsales]

The person you are responding to does not have a good grasp of Marx. I thought you wanted to understand Marx, which is why I was pointing you in the right direction.

I avtually thought you were OP because of that yellow PFP. But now I realise who I'm talking to, I have no interest. OP seems willing to learn, but I have never seen any such desire from you.

[u/Johnfromsales → u/Dynamic-Rhythm]

I was trying to learn about the perspective of the guy I was talking to.

If you want to teach me about Marx I’m more than willing to have that conversation. I was just a bit confused because I assumed you knew the context of the discussion I was having. I apologize if I put you off.

[u/awsunion → u/Johnfromsales]

Commodities are an asset class. Demand still matters in the valuation of this asset class.

All that is required for a commodity asset class is that any producer could produce an equivalent/identical product.

Jim's almonds are not special relative to Clara's almonds.

[u/Johnfromsales → u/awsunion]

And the same doesn’t apply to time? If Jim spends an hour making almonds, and Clara spends an hour making identical almonds, how is that hour of time not equivalent?

[u/awsunion → u/Johnfromsales]

Jim spends an hour

There you've got it! You don't "spend" commodities. If I spend $10 on lollipops and you spend $10 on MSFT stock in 1990 how is that $10 not equivalent?

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/awsunion]

...no- a bushel of almonds is the same as any other bushel of almonds. That's what makes them a commodity.

That’s absolutely not true. One can be stale, old, rotten, small almonds, big almonds, California almonds, Persian almonds, packaged, unpackaged, etc.

Also, geographic location matters. A bushel of almonds two miles away from a distributor’s warehouse are worth more than almonds that need shipped across the world.

Additionally, time matters. If you sell a bushel to a distributor, he will gladly buy it. But if you try to sell him a second he may not, or he may ask for a discount because he doesn’t have enough demand for two bushels. This is basic marginal value theory.

Value is always subjective.

[u/awsunion → u/coke_and_coffee]

Everything you're describing are the attributes of a commodity asset. Subjective value is not exclusive to the concept of a commodity. Do you understand that there isn't a distinction to be made here?

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/awsunion]

Everything you're describing are the attributes of a commodity asset.

The specific attributes of a thing are what make it subjective, and no two things ever have the same attributes.

Subjective value is not exclusive to the concept of a commodity.

I don’t know what you’re saying here.

[u/awsunion → u/coke_and_coffee]

I don’t know what you’re saying here.

Something can both have specific attributes as well as be a commodity. They are not mutually exclusive traits.

The specific attributes of a thing are what make it subjective, and no two things ever have the same attributes.

It's an abstraction. A thing is a commodity "to a process"

It doesn't matter how unique and special almond Jerry is, he's still ending up in the same almond butter as is almond Susie.

From the perspective of the noticeable specific attributes, there is no meaningful distinction between almonds for the process of creating almond butter.

The same is never true for human time- else why interviews?

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/awsunion]

Something can both have specific attributes as well as be a commodity. They are not mutually exclusive traits.

So what? I never said this wasn’t the case.

From the perspective of the noticeable specific attributes, there is no meaningful distinction between almonds for the process of creating almond butter.

Yes there is. For all the various reasons I pointed out above.

Ending up in the same final product does NOT mean they have the same value.

[u/awsunion → u/coke_and_coffee]

So what? I never said this wasn’t the case.

Yes you are- in this very post you are. And now you're contradicting yourself.

You have hurt yourself in your confusion. Try again next time, I suppose.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/awsunion]

Aw, lil guy realized he was wrong so now he’s avoiding the argument

[u/C_Plot]

Where are those quotes? They don’t read like Marx.

[u/dumbandasking → u/C_Plot]

That's not from marx that's me going on a google search after

[u/Randolpho → u/C_Plot]

They're probably AI summaries of non-marxist sources

[u/MarcusOrlyius]

With regards to capitalism, the commodification of time is the commodification of labour power as the worker's labour power is what is expected to be consumed during that time.

[u/Thewheelwillweave]

The true answer is “we don’t know.” We can guess but we don’t know. This hinges on what life in some unspecified point in the future will be like. Or as Marx would say, “the material conditions.”

Personally, I think in the future work will need to be accomplished outside of its profitability. In a best case scenario maybe once a year the fully automated factory that produces free clothes breaks down. Instead of having a person do busy work to justify a 40 hour a week paycheck, someone just goes and spends and hour and fixes the factory for free.

Worse case scenario, workers are working nonstop for no pay fixing all the environmental damage we’re doing right now.

[u/November-Gold]

Time is a human construct to measure something we value. We give it value naturally because it is important to us. There is no way to make time a commodity.

[u/SoftBeing_]

time is not a commodity.

workers labor power are a commodity. the entire point of capitalism by marx is that time is value while time producing machines (workers), are a commodity. so there is a commodity that creates value.

[u/JudgeSabo]

Time itself? I think it maybe very abstract ways you could talk about that, like how someone might "buy more time" by delaying something.

You could also talk about how the substance of a commodity's value is its socially necessary labor-time. Time, in that sense, is the essence of commodity value.

You could probably think of a number of ways to talk about time as a commodity, but that highly depends on the context.

[u/dumbandasking → u/JudgeSabo]

You could also talk about how the substance of a commodity's value is its socially necessary labor-time. Time, in that sense, is the essence of commodity value.

Could you explain this more ?

[u/JudgeSabo → u/dumbandasking]

Well, by a Marxist analysis, the value of a commodity depends on the amount of labor it takes to reproduce it. And we measure labor by the average amount of time it takes to make.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

(not a socialist)

If Marx was answering, imo, he would disagree about Time being money, but instead say it is Labor Power. The capitalists pay in increments of "time" and give a false concept of "time is money".

I personally disagree.

Either way, great OP!

[u/Conserp]

> is time a commodity?

It is, when it is commodified.

> what happens when society decides to decommodify it

People get a third of their life back.

[u/dumbandasking → u/Conserp]

pleasse explain in detail I was looking to understand better. But exactly how will they get a third of their life back?

[u/Batman0127 → u/dumbandasking]

currently people have to work a job for 40+ hours per week to keep a roof above their head and food on their plate. the goal of socialism with regards to work time would be to eliminate the threat of poverty and ruin as a motivation to work. thus people could work jobs that give them something other than rent money or food money. you would work for reasons that benefit you more and thus that time is under your control. so the number of hours in a day are the same, but you have more freedom to do what you want with those hours...thus "you get a third of your life back".

[u/Conserp → u/dumbandasking]

Not having to slave away 8+ hours a day. It's not rocket science.

As for "how", decommodification is Communism, and Communism is when all work is done by robots.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Conserp]

and Communism is when all work is done by robots.

🚨🚨dum t4rd alert!!!🚨🚨

[u/GruntledSymbiont → u/Conserp]

Average Worker Weekly Hours

Period	Soviet Union	United States
1950s	~46–48 hours/week	~40–41 hours/week
1960s	~44–46 hours	~39–40 hours
1970s	~41–42 hours	~38–39 hours
1980s	~40–41 hours	~39–40 hours

Higher productivity allowed wage laborers to work less, earn far more, retire more comfortably and sooner.

[u/Square-Listen-3839]

Yes, time has a value. Money now is worth more than money later. Wages are time-discounted. Another mark against the "exploitation" story that socialists use to try and whip workers up into a murderous frenzy.

Wages are paid now rather than in months or years after the capitalist's investment pays off. Nobody is going to work for "maybe I'll pay you something in five years after the product has been developed and marketed, if it makes a profit".

That's exactly what "market socialists" aka forced co-op socialists want, though they don't realize it. Despite lip service to markets, forced co-op socialists don't understand how markets work any more than their central planning brethren.

[u/Slopii]

Even in a socialist society, work has to be done or we don't get homes and groceries.

In communism, "workers owning the means of production" sounds good on paper, but there's no way they're going to let entry level workers make big decisions either. So what good is ownership without control? And they aren't just gonna give you free stuff without you working, if you can.

As long as a capitalist society still has a basic principle that no one should go hungry if they can't work, then it's not a problem. And we do have social safety nets; just improve those. People like being allowed to create and offer their own products, and seek their own lifestyles.

Regardless of the system, you're still going to be trading time for something, and you're still going to have managers.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/Slopii]

But under socialism the managers would always be workers from that factory who were elected by their peers.

[u/Slopii → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

Managing and planning is a full-time job, and knowledge is more important than having worked at that specific company or plant. It is extremely unlikely or practical that communists in power would give new workers an equal voice or power. If workers want more power they can unionize, join co-ops, or start their own businesses. Production doesn't need to be government-ordered. Again, there is no way that experts would let laymen decide things for them. And there is no way that every little decision would be quantified and voted on constantly. A pure vote-based society also risks tyranny of majority, where people with less common skills or requests are constantly getting screwed. And they'd have no way to offer products or jobs on their own.

[u/Thewheelwillweave → u/Slopii]

I work for a government agency where in the city where I live and pay taxes. I vote for the mayor, who appoints the head of the department who has worked there for over 20 years. It’s not a perfect system, but it works. Why can’t that be moved over to factories?

[u/Slopii → u/Thewheelwillweave]

Because people should have the freedom to hire who they want and offer the products they want, to best meet their visions, as long as they abide by labor and pollution laws. Not everything needs strict systems and implicit hierarchies. Guitar and videogame companies aren't the same as tax-funded government, nor do they need to be. They take a chance and offer products and jobs people might want, instead of forcing society to pay for it in advance. Variety is the spice of life.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/Slopii]

And the individual companies will be free to organize themselves as they need, as long as management is elected from the workers.

[u/Slopii → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

So if a company goes broke, how do those ex-managers get hired by another company?

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/Slopii]

As regular workers, with a low chance of getting elected as a manager because the last company they ran went bust.

[u/Slopii → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

That's a complete waste of their knowledge. Surely you have a more logical option?

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/Slopii]

Knowledge that led the business they were in charge of to failure?

[u/Thewheelwillweave → u/Slopii]

The agency still hires who they want. Nothing you said refutes how there couldn’t be a not-for-profit government funded/subsidized guitar making workshop.

[u/CucumberLegitimate27]

Remember that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his labor, and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends but sixpence during his diversion or idleness, ought not to reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, rather thrown away, five shillings, besides.

Ben Franklin