Zobel said:
this is the crux of the argument, and this is where you are 100% wrong. in every other transaction we set someone's livelihood.
No we set 1/10,000 of a person's livelihood. and in those transactions the parties are negotiating on equal footing, unlike in this scenario.
Quote:
and in every negotiation there is inevitable ignorance of information, and in every negotiation we actually use information to our advantage. i would even go as far as to say that the use of information is what drives the entire premise of indirect trade (e.g., trade involving more than one transaction between producer and consumer)
What's your point? Because my point is that employers retain a persistent and significant advantage in information that causes labor, especially at the lower ends, to end up consistently accepting lower wages than they otherwise would have. It's a flaw in our system and it effects people at the bottom the most.
Quote:
Quote:
You are telling me that's what Jesus would have you do?
I'm telling you that it has nothing to do with it. Compensation is compensation, charity is charity.
If it has nothing to do with it, answer the question. I disagree that what is moral has nothing to do with it. I find it a peculiar thing that your opinion of what your own god thinks is right doesn't matter. Let's start with you actually answering the question and then let's discuss why it might or might not matter. In such a situation what would jesus have you do?
Quote:
You don't magically inherit obligation when you employ someone that you don't otherwise already have.
Yes you do. In fact many of those obligations are legal requirements. You have obligations with regard to their safety, if they are hurt on the job, their unemployment, their overtime ect.
Quote:
If someone needs help, you should help them regardless of whether or not they are your employee, or the grocer down the street.
Sure, but I'm not asking if you should help someone who needs help or feed someone who needs fed. I'm asking if you should use your advantageous negotiating position to pay them as little as they are willing to accept even if you could afford to pay them significantly more while making a profit.
Quote:
No, collusion doesn't fit the definition of free exchange
I'm not talking about secret or illegal cooperation. I'm talking about two people who want to negotiate their employment services with one employer at the same time. Why do we need the government involved in this?
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't willfully holding back information that you have that your prospective employee does not have and would help their negotiating position fundamentally deceptive?
no
How is it not? This is what jesus would have you do in those negotiations?
Quote:
Quote:
People should be allowed to be paid differently for the same job because people can perform the same job at different levels. And if employees knew they were being paid less for the same job than could bring it up to their employer and the employer could say, joe has 8% better numbers than you and that's why he gets more. Or the emplyee could say I've got 10% better numbers than joe, I want you to correct the imbalance.
of course i agree with this. Dies Irae says the employee should say "joe has the same numbers than me but I have two more kids, you are obligated to pay me more." which is absurd, and inequitable.
Sure I'm not arguing that. It's not based on need. The problem with your model is that because everything is behind the veil it's rare for one employee to say I've got 10% better numbers I want more than joe, because the employer very rarely let's it be known (to the extent of very commonly taking technically illegal actions they often get away with) to prevent employees from knowing each other's wages.
Quote:
and as an employer you know that there are intangibles as well. people get paid differently because people are different, because labor isn't a commodity. if it was, it would be traded on the open market and the price of labor would be transparent, like the price of oil.
The price of labor can be much more transparent even if it's not a pure commodity. Coaching salaries at public schools are transparent and coaches use that to their advantage even though each one takes into account unique circumstances and intangibles.
Quote:
the asserted right to a living wage, on the edge case, requires either paying above the value of the work product or eliminating the job.
The value of the work in an of itself isn't objective and labor is at a negotiating disadvantage as I've discussed and that at this point you aren't really challenging. But even dismissing that, looking at minimums is still well within a societies purview.
We could have sweatshops, it creates jobs and if someone is desperate enough they might work there. Society is left with a few options. Have an underclass that may cause significant harm in crime, uprising, poverty, poor health ect. Provide some sort of governmental security blanket. And/Or provide certain limits of base pay.
Due to the advantageous negotiating position of owners, you will have situations where owners can afford to pay a living wage and still profit, but will drive down wages to below subsistence levels and the remainder of society will then subsidize the owners low costs. I don't see a very good reason to do this as apposed to demanding a base level wage.
Yes certain jobs that truly cannot be profitable because they don't produce enough monetary value (a guy in the elevator to push your button for instance) will be eliminated. I don't find this to be an unreasonable cost, and I think a society is free to determine and protect the basic needs of the working class both through charity and job security and minimum standards. Counterintuitively, It's not even clear among economist that relatively low minimum wages actually damage overall un-employment.
