Topic: a question for left-liberals - page 5. (Read 21860 times)

In a basic sense, here's what you are saying: The seller of goods does not have the right to price their goods at whatever price they would like.

If I am selling paintings that take me an hour to create for $3 each, that is my prerogative.  No one is going to stop me from doing so.  It is my choice to work for $3/hr, as it should be.

If someone else pays me to paint paintings for $3/hr, it is now suddenly against the law.

Where is the logic in this???

As kiba said, attitudes like this kill innovation.  If a new company isn't allowed to pay me $3/hr to paint paintings for them, and they can't afford to pay me $9.00/hr (the current minimum in my state), then they won't be able to start the company at all.  That's one less company, one less competitor, one less business bringing in GDP for the economy.  It's bad news all around, even if it looks good on the surface that we aren't "underpaying" workers.

Let the free market figure out fair wages.

There's the difference between the need for social protection and unintended consequence as a result of trying to implement laws that respect the need for social protection, catch my drift?

In any case, the bitcoin economy couldn't thrive if people can't pay each other below the minimum wage.

I'm not all that for minimum wage, but I'm for the need of social protection.

Isn't "the owner have nothing to overpay", but also "the employee has nothing to be underpaid". When it comes to balance the odds, take the party of the one "down" is much more morality worthy than take the party of its exploiter.

Corporations can run for ages with bad management and treating employees like expendable crap, those corps may be condemned, is true - still depends on what they do and what concurrence do they've, electrical corps don't normally have real concurrence for an instance -, but while they aren't put down all those who were unfortunate enough to fall under its teeth if not protected will have a harsh time and that... is inhuman to assist without do anything.

Huge corporation or small business, it doesn't change the market wage.  If said man's labor really is worth $10, then he'll find a job at $10.  Might take some looking, but it'll be out there.

I know right now, I wouldn't take any job that pays less than $17/hr.  That's what I value my labor at.  Everyone has the same choice - they can choose not to work for $3/hr if they want.  And if many people make such a choice, then an employer, even a corporation, will have to raise their wages to keep employees.

No one likes employee turnover.  The companies that treat their employees the worst and that pay the least will have the highest turnover.  They might have to replace their average employee once a month.  All of that constant retraining and movement of employees can take a toll on management, co-workers, morale, and the general workability of the corporation.  If a corporation did try to operate in such a manner (as some do), their customer service will be terrible, their sales will follow, and eventually, the company will cease to exist.

I'd rather let the free market take care of greedy corporations than try to regulate our way out of it and make things that much worse.

One example:  Restaurants in my city are always PACKED.  Uncomfortably so, to the point where you end up waiting quite a while to eat on any weekend evening.  It would seem that there is much business to be had if you are looking to open a restaurant in the area.  Unfortunately, there just aren't enough to meet demand, because if the restaurants couldn't overfill their facilities on a nightly basis, they wouldn't make enough money to pay the 20+ laborers the ridiculously high minimum wage we have here.  Since they are forced to pay their workers a good deal above what their services *should* be worth, we have a smaller selection of crowded restaurants.

Is it worth it?

+1

If you're invested in a trade that then becomes obsolete due to technological advancements, we shouldn't have to impede Human advancement so the guy who makes horse carriages can still make a living off that trade. He should look at the service he offers, look at the changing state of the world around, then decide whether or not he could still make a workable profit from his trade; if not, maybe he should think of getting into a new trade. There may still be a market for his horse carriages, albeit smaller than before. Even today you might still see the occasional horse drawn carriage, and they still need maintenance. People might still want to acquire his services if he can really fix up horse carriages to an exceptional standard.

We have digital watches these days, but some people simply prefer old analogue watches and there is still a small market for their creation and maintenance if your craftsmanship is good enough.

If you are skilled laborer then you are an investor. You are investing in yourself. Like all investments, there's a chance it doesn't pay off. If you fix horse carriages for a living but the automobile comes along and you no longer have a job then you need to move to a new career. If you can't find a job with your current skills, get some new skills. It's not my job to subsidize your investment loss.

You're looking to small commerce, small contractors and overall "small" something.

If a guy's work worth 10, but his job is meant to be under a huge corporation to which you can barely find anything resembling concurrence, this corp. will pay him whatever less it cans.

Because your idea was actually voided by the Industrial Revolution, up to that time most business were small enough for concurrence to quickly kick in, after the Industrial Revolution you start to get enterprises and corporations that requires heavy investment to start.

Let's say that you hire a guy worth $10 an hour at $6 an hour thereby making a profit of $4 an hour. As soon as you do that, someone else is going to offer him $6.50 an hour because they would still be making $3.50 an hour profit. Then yet another person offers him $7 an hour because they can make $3 an hour. Do you see where this is going? The guy's wages will approach what they are worth because competition encourages employers to offer more money because $3 an hour profit is better than nothing, which is what they would get if someone else hired the guy.

If that theory applies, than a worker whose labor worth 10 would be receiving at least 7 or 8... but by common practice he's getting 6, and give it a chance and he will be getting 3, or even less...

And don't come with supply and demand, as many companies operate solo or with minor concurrence, profiting highly from their labor as it, despite producing to high profit, have few places to absorb them in the market.

By practicing it is needed some social protection, without it we already been there and know where it ends...

The workers or the employers?  Because $3.00 is still better than $0.  Forcing companies to pay $3.25 will result in some workers making an extra $.025, but will also result in some workers who used to get $3.00 now getting $0.  In our example it is impossible to say what that ratio would be, but you can't compare people's utility anyway so it's moot. 

It's not always that sharp a choice. How about if the argument is between $3 and $3.25? Some employers will pay and a few will have to do without the workers. Too bad for them.

If your labor is worth $3 an hour but the minimum wage is $6 an hour, you don't get the $6 an hour at a $3 an hour loss to the employer. You get nothing because you won't be hired. You're presenting a false dilemma. The choice isn't between $3 an hour and $6 an hour. The choice is between $3 an hour and nothing. Whatever can be said about getting $3 an hour, a lot more can be said about getting nothing.

Last time i checked the only stock prices that were effected by an outbreak of AIDS was apple.
I guess I do have to concede the fact that if you get a disease from your activity, then medical costs go up, otherwise these seem pretty lame examples.  The bank doesn't foreclose on my house because I get herpes, you can argue that when you get to paying for sex instead of consistent partners that it could spiral into a social outcome, but the scope is still very limited compared to if everyone decided taking unlivable wages was a turn on.

What about the kids, man?    We don't regulate sexual activities between consenting adults, but what if a man cheats on his wife with a ho, gets AIDS and then gives it to his wife?  Then the negative externalities are that the kids will not have parents.  What about politicians who have mistresses on the side that they pay with government money and who distract them from their jobs?  Ha ha, these are contrived examples to be sure, but you can think of all kinds of ways that not regulating sexual activities can cause negative externalities.  But they certainly aren't good reasons to do so.

+1 internets for you sir!

Many people. Besides, getting tested regularly only reduces the risk. There's still a risk.

Your claim was that the effects of sexual activities between two consenting adults begin and end in the bedroom but that's false. To be consistent, if you're going to interfere based on the negative consequences that spillover into the rest of society, you'd have to regulate what happens in bedrooms as well as workplaces.

Everyone can get tested, who's against that?

We're talking about genitals here, don't corrupt the argument

Also, how is "Free love means we shouldn't have a minimum wage" any different than "When I'm fishing I choose where to cast my rod, therefore I can tresspass wherever i want"?

What about putting folding cash into landlord's pocket? (Because it turns him on)

Well, you might have trouble walking/working the next day? Also, having unprotected promiscuous sex increases the risk of spreading disease. I'm willing to be there are plenty of other negative externalities too.

Rather than look at this from an economics stand-point, is it fair to say that the reason I only apply the "between consenting adults" to sexy times is that 'who puts what where' isn't going to change the course of anything?  Take twenty dicks, for all I care, it doesn't change the day to day, except in that one facet. You can be the most vanilla person in the pants or crazy, and you still put your pants on one leg at a time (some substitute ass-less chaps for pants, whatever)

I don't care if i'm oversimplifying this, I fail to recognize how "I can stick parts of me in other people's parts in fun and interesting ways" == "There should be no minimum wage"  I make love using an intricate series of pulleys, your argument is invalid.