Wage Slavery & The Cost of Ethics

Ok, so I suppose I could make some sort of very subjective ethical statement about why I am opposed to wage slavery (only in regard to myself, of course, as I think everyone has the right to make her/his own choices.)

As I understand it, chattel slavery is a condition where human beings are bought and sold as property for use at the discretion of the owner. Chattel slaves, as property have little or no say in the management of their day-to-day lives and livelihood.

Wage slavery, on the other hand is a condition where human beings sell their time to an employer in exchange for a livelihood. Once employed, the livelyhood of wage slaves is almost entirely dependent on their employer, who in effect periodically "owns" the wage slave. Wage slaves do not participate in ownership of the means of production, and are therefore not equitably compensated for their time and labor. They are instead compensated at the discretion of their employer.

The issue seems not to be one of simply selling one's time to an employer, rather it is an issue of equality, equitable compensation, ownership, and control. In the selling of blocks of time, the individuals agrees to submit to an authoritarian (unequal) employer-employee dynamic. What is the justification for the inequality? The employer owns the means of production and controls the relationship. For the agreed upon period, the employer also owns the time/labor of the wage slave. The wage slave then owns nothing and is therefore stripped of any equal footing with the employer.

One possible solution, then would be for the laborer to participate in ownership of the means of production during the period of employment and to receive equitable compensation for that participation.

All of this brings up several complex questions about ownership of private property and other means of production (land, buildings, machinery, tools, equipment, intellectual property?)

Having been conditioned through the usual Western institutions to believe that inequality of ownership is acceptable and ethical, it's difficult to navigate around this idea. Something at the core of my being tells me that we are capable of a more humane arrangement. Competing for control of scarce resources is antithetical to my primary assumption of Abundance.

If scarcity of resources is a fallacy, and Abundance is Truth, would it not be in our best interest to practice cooperation over competition. Afterall, "resources" is a very broad, and creative category that encompasses everything from land & labor, to water, air, and light. Almost any material energy, or potential energy may be considered a resource (including human beings.) There is unlimited energy, much of it untapped, and competing for such abundance is reduced to nothing more than counter-productive distraction.

That is not to say that competition does not have its place as an exercise, a way of breaking out of a staid positions, and as a way of shifting paradigms. However, adopting competition as an organizing principle for society might want to give us pause.

As for the cost of these ethics, that remains to be seen. . . a subject for follow-up.