3 ms·

> I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probab

by jahaja 10y ago

> I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probably be more explicit if that's your definition of fair. Excluding that, that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider - you even quote the important part. Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker? > why are places like Walmart so afraid of them? Ehm, profits? > But what do you take away from it? Why does this matter to you?

randomdata 10y ago
> Given that this is no economics site Well, we were talking about economics. I wouldn't find it necessary to hold back technical jargon on a forum not specifically about tech if the topic in question was tech. > and that no parent gave reference to FMV And what do you think compensation represents, exaclty? That's right, someone's established market value. > that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider What quote? Fair market value? What formal definition do you go by? > Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker? Yes, although we've already discussed that to death, surely? Without a union, each person has the fair opportunity to make their own choices to their own benefit, including undercutting the next guy to ensure getting the job over the next guy. With a union, the people must be employed under the terms of the union, and do not have fair opportunity to make their own choices for their own benefit, like undercutting the next guy to secure the job. This is a good thing. Fair is harmful. You don't want the next guy undercutting you, as that's what drives down value, reduces compensation, encourages you to take dangerous risks, and so on. I still find it difficult to fathom that you are in support of a fair labour market where anyone can do those things. We have a long history before unions to see what happens when the market is fair. It's not pretty. > Ehm, profits? But there's no pressure, right? Walmart doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to. With no pressure, why would profits change? The market is fair, according to you, after all. > Why does this matter to you? Because it might help me figure out where you are coming from. Are you anti-union? I'm staring to get the impression that you are. Why do you support a fair market when the downsides are abundantly clear?
- jahaja 10y ago
  No, there's no guarantee that what the OP meant by fair is what you want it to be. It can just as well be - it's even more likely - an ethical judgement of fair, e.g. a sustainable living wage. How can you possibly think I'm anti-union? This is just dishonest and pointless. Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm leaving it here as it's obvious we won't get much further and you're cherry-picking and twisting half of the words I'm using.

by jahaja 10y ago

randomdata 10y ago

> Given that this is no economics site Well, we were talking about economics. I wouldn't find it necessary to hold back technical jargon on a forum not specifically about tech if the topic in question was tech. > and that no parent gave reference to FMV And what do you think compensation represents, exaclty? That's right, someone's established market value. > that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider What quote? Fair market value? What formal definition do you go by? > Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker? Yes, although we've already discussed that to death, surely? Without a union, each person has the fair opportunity to make their own choices to their own benefit, including undercutting the next guy to ensure getting the job over the next guy. With a union, the people must be employed under the terms of the union, and do not have fair opportunity to make their own choices for their own benefit, like undercutting the next guy to secure the job. This is a good thing. Fair is harmful. You don't want the next guy undercutting you, as that's what drives down value, reduces compensation, encourages you to take dangerous risks, and so on. I still find it difficult to fathom that you are in support of a fair labour market where anyone can do those things. We have a long history before unions to see what happens when the market is fair. It's not pretty. > Ehm, profits? But there's no pressure, right? Walmart doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to. With no pressure, why would profits change? The market is fair, according to you, after all. > Why does this matter to you? Because it might help me figure out where you are coming from. Are you anti-union? I'm staring to get the impression that you are. Why do you support a fair market when the downsides are abundantly clear?

jahaja 10y ago
No, there's no guarantee that what the OP meant by fair is what you want it to be. It can just as well be - it's even more likely - an ethical judgement of fair, e.g. a sustainable living wage. How can you possibly think I'm anti-union? This is just dishonest and pointless. Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm leaving it here as it's obvious we won't get much further and you're cherry-picking and twisting half of the words I'm using.