6 ms·

Haven't read the article... but my response to you is that not every "contractual" agreement is voluntary. Think people working minimum wage jobs to feed their

Haven't read the article... but my response to you is that not every "contractual" agreement is voluntary. Think people working minimum wage jobs to feed their children, or children working in sweatshops in asia. I get what you are saying... that it is a click bait title, but the fact remains that the late-stage capitalistic hierarchies that form are not totally unlike other labor systems (indentured servitude/slavery) that we have generally deemed as immoral.

GhostVII 9y ago
How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Really, the company giving the person their minimum wage job is more 'moral' than the other companies in the area, because the other companies offered an even worse job, or didn't offer one at all.
- subway 9y ago
  I mean, I guess giving up and letting your family or yourself starve is an option. For a lot of folks in low wage positions, the mere act of looking for an alternative puts their current wages in jeopardy. Their employer may decide they're now disloyal and sack them. They bring home less money because they have to spend unpaid time searching for a new gig -- they'd do it outside of work hours, but at some point you have to sleep and feed the kids, right?
  - GhostVII 9y ago
    Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?
        coldtea 9y ago
        Better than compelling them to be selfish.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Of course, but that's not the alternative to what you propose.
        coldtea 9y ago
        I think it is, that's the "free market" key value, going as back as Adam Smith (e.g. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.").
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Nothing in the Adam Smith quote suggests compulsion. There is a very real difference between compelling someone to do something by threatening to throw them in prison, and leaving someone alone, and they deciding to do something out of self-interest. Remember, the law is not benign. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...
- coldtea 9y ago
  >How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Because by optional we mean a totally free choice -- not merely the necessity to chose among N available options (lest you starve). There are degrees in freedom (a rich person doesn't have to work at all if they don't feel like it), but when you're scouting for minimum wage jobs, you're at the lowest of those degrees.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force. The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force. This is absolutely not a case of "figurative freedom" vs "literal freedom" -- there's a large body on work on the issue, and the most used terms for those two types of freedom are "negative freedom" (for what you call "literal freedom") and "positive freedom" (for what you call "freedom in the figurative sense"). You might also find them referenced by the simplified terms "freedom from" and "freedom to". In any case, it's very limiting to consider "negative freedom" (the most limited form) as THE "literal" freedom. I would still argue that hanger is a force, and being obliged to work for food (even if you have a choice of employment options) is not being free in the "literal sense" (you are not "free from hunger") and even less so if your choice is (because of your "market value" or lack of skills, or being unfortunate to be born in a family that couldn't invest in your education) between awful minimum wage jobs. Just because what compels you is not an actual master/person, but the collective arrangement we call a "job market", and just because you have a choice, doesn't mean you're free or that you enter those contracts without an external force leading your hand. >The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions. Voluntary is a spectrum: my solutions will only harm the much-less voluntary types of interactions. Sort of like preventing the poor from selling their kidneys for money -- it's indeed a regulatory prohibition, and they could make a good buck off of it if they were allowed, but I also believe its better to not allow it until it becomes a positive freedom choice and not "what could I do, I had to pay the bills or I'd lose my house" kind of "voluntary" choice.
aaronhoffman 9y ago
I agree the issue is complex, and I wish there was more balanced discussion throughout. You can not simply ignore the control large corporations have throughout society just because it is not the "monopoly of violence" that a civil government has. We need to think about these problems in context of time, and the decisions made over time. A stork does not drop a baby off at your door, and a company does not accumulate/generate wealth overnight (although, companies are turning over more rapidly recently). We need to make sure the correct incentives/systems are in place to ensure healthy, decentralized, competition.

GhostVII 9y ago

How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Really, the company giving the person their minimum wage job is more 'moral' than the other companies in the area, because the other companies offered an even worse job, or didn't offer one at all.

subway 9y ago
I mean, I guess giving up and letting your family or yourself starve is an option. For a lot of folks in low wage positions, the mere act of looking for an alternative puts their current wages in jeopardy. Their employer may decide they're now disloyal and sack them. They bring home less money because they have to spend unpaid time searching for a new gig -- they'd do it outside of work hours, but at some point you have to sleep and feed the kids, right?
- GhostVII 9y ago
  Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Better than compelling them to be selfish.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Of course, but that's not the alternative to what you propose.
        coldtea 9y ago
        I think it is, that's the "free market" key value, going as back as Adam Smith (e.g. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.").
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Nothing in the Adam Smith quote suggests compulsion. There is a very real difference between compelling someone to do something by threatening to throw them in prison, and leaving someone alone, and they deciding to do something out of self-interest. Remember, the law is not benign. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...
coldtea 9y ago
>How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Because by optional we mean a totally free choice -- not merely the necessity to chose among N available options (lest you starve). There are degrees in freedom (a rich person doesn't have to work at all if they don't feel like it), but when you're scouting for minimum wage jobs, you're at the lowest of those degrees.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force. The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force. This is absolutely not a case of "figurative freedom" vs "literal freedom" -- there's a large body on work on the issue, and the most used terms for those two types of freedom are "negative freedom" (for what you call "literal freedom") and "positive freedom" (for what you call "freedom in the figurative sense"). You might also find them referenced by the simplified terms "freedom from" and "freedom to". In any case, it's very limiting to consider "negative freedom" (the most limited form) as THE "literal" freedom. I would still argue that hanger is a force, and being obliged to work for food (even if you have a choice of employment options) is not being free in the "literal sense" (you are not "free from hunger") and even less so if your choice is (because of your "market value" or lack of skills, or being unfortunate to be born in a family that couldn't invest in your education) between awful minimum wage jobs. Just because what compels you is not an actual master/person, but the collective arrangement we call a "job market", and just because you have a choice, doesn't mean you're free or that you enter those contracts without an external force leading your hand. >The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions. Voluntary is a spectrum: my solutions will only harm the much-less voluntary types of interactions. Sort of like preventing the poor from selling their kidneys for money -- it's indeed a regulatory prohibition, and they could make a good buck off of it if they were allowed, but I also believe its better to not allow it until it becomes a positive freedom choice and not "what could I do, I had to pay the bills or I'd lose my house" kind of "voluntary" choice.

aaronhoffman 9y ago

I agree the issue is complex, and I wish there was more balanced discussion throughout. You can not simply ignore the control large corporations have throughout society just because it is not the "monopoly of violence" that a civil government has. We need to think about these problems in context of time, and the decisions made over time. A stork does not drop a baby off at your door, and a company does not accumulate/generate wealth overnight (although, companies are turning over more rapidly recently). We need to make sure the correct incentives/systems are in place to ensure healthy, decentralized, competition.