5 ms·

There are a billion assumptions wrapped up in those statements. I will address some of them. 1. Every link is NOT compensated fairly. Wages have been stagnant

There are a billion assumptions wrapped up in those statements. I will address some of them. 1. Every link is NOT compensated fairly. Wages have been stagnant for decades; meanwhile, the cost of everything else (especially housing) continues to rise, sometimes astronomically. $7.25 is the federal minimum wage, and it is impossible to live on. 2. Plenty of people are coerced into enduring terrible employment simply because they need to survive. I get it, Walmart needs employees too, but they should be in a union. It shouldn’t be possible to fire something and hire them back to start them back at the lowest pay grade (yes, this is a real thing they actually do). 3. Capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum; nothing does. The Randian “well, everyone’s trading value for value” falls apart the minute you look at a $10,000 MRI bill, or a $7.25 minimum wage, or an entire city that’s been destroyed because production moved overseas. It doesn’t particularly matter how much stocking shelves “is worth”; if you are alive, you don’t deserve to live in squalor and poverty in the richest country in the world.

lolsal 9y ago
> 1. Every link is NOT compensated fairly. Wages have been stagnant for decades; meanwhile, the cost of everything else (especially housing) continues to rise, sometimes astronomically. $7.25 is the federal minimum wage, and it is impossible to live on. If I offer you $1 for your banana, and you agree and then we exchange the $1 and the banana, is that not fair? > 2. Plenty of people are coerced into enduring terrible employment simply because they need to survive. Are you arguing that 'providing for yourself' counts as coercion? What actor is doing the coercion? > I get it, Walmart needs employees too, but they should be in a union. It shouldn’t be possible to fire something and hire them back to start them back at the lowest pay grade (yes, this is a real thing they actually do). Are they agreeing to be re-hired? > 3. Capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum; nothing does. The Randian “well, everyone’s trading value for value” falls apart the minute you look at a $10,000 MRI bill, or a $7.25 minimum wage, or an entire city that’s been destroyed because production moved overseas. Why? MRIs provide a lot of value! Minimum wage effort provides low value. > It doesn’t particularly matter how much stocking shelves “is worth”; if you are alive, you don’t deserve to live in squalor and poverty in the richest country in the world. Why? You're implying that being born in one place or another changes what you 'deserve' as a human being. That's an interesting, but scary line of thought!
- throwaway_1asdf 9y ago
  I'll hop in. Net value-add across the entire chain doesn't imply local value-add. And it's deeply short-sighted to be fine with certain sectors of people collapsing so long as the GDP has a net increase. Two individual actors agreeing to a price doesn't make the price fair, and it ignores the larger economic/political arena that surrounds them. Following the MRI example: nobody in this thread is suggesting that those don't provide value. One poster is suggesting that such expensive operations should be subsidized through other mechanisms that take the larger economic/political arena into account (living, capable workers provide more value than sick/dead ones). The other poster is suggesting that a low-wage laborer doesn't deserve to have an MRI because they can't individually afford it. The latter is a weak argument intellectually (let's not even _try_ to develop new mechanisms that include more people), morally, and economically (assumes that markets are free, efficient, and devoid of history).
- matt4077 9y ago
  You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I disagree with that position, but it isn't completely unreasonable. But your argument simply "proves too much". Your definition of "agreement", for example, includes a hostage agreeing to pay the ransom. It would also cover child labor, any form of discrimination, selling yourself into slavery, the abolishment of all labor standards including safety laws, shrink-wrap TOCs, non-compete clauses, forced arbitration for all disputes etc. etc.
  - lolsal 9y ago
    > You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. I'm not. > There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I myself wouldn't agree that the US economic system is totally fair - there are cheaters/liars/coercion/exploitation everywhere. There are lots of things that are unfair, but choosing to work for minimum wage is not one of those things. An entrepreneur making 10000 more than someone else in the chain is also not one of those things, in my opinion. > But your argument simply "proves too much". Your definition of "agreement", for example, includes a hostage agreeing to pay the ransom. It would also cover child labor, any form of discrimination, selling yourself into slavery, the abolishment of all labor standards including safety laws, shrink-wrap TOCs, non-compete clauses, forced arbitration for all disputes etc. etc I'm deliberately excluding situations like this where actors are being coerced, so my examples do not include hostages, child labor, slavery, etc. Those are crimes for a reason and excluded here. See my original comment for where I omitted acts of coercion.

lolsal 9y ago

> 1. Every link is NOT compensated fairly. Wages have been stagnant for decades; meanwhile, the cost of everything else (especially housing) continues to rise, sometimes astronomically. $7.25 is the federal minimum wage, and it is impossible to live on. If I offer you $1 for your banana, and you agree and then we exchange the $1 and the banana, is that not fair? > 2. Plenty of people are coerced into enduring terrible employment simply because they need to survive. Are you arguing that 'providing for yourself' counts as coercion? What actor is doing the coercion? > I get it, Walmart needs employees too, but they should be in a union. It shouldn’t be possible to fire something and hire them back to start them back at the lowest pay grade (yes, this is a real thing they actually do). Are they agreeing to be re-hired? > 3. Capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum; nothing does. The Randian “well, everyone’s trading value for value” falls apart the minute you look at a $10,000 MRI bill, or a $7.25 minimum wage, or an entire city that’s been destroyed because production moved overseas. Why? MRIs provide a lot of value! Minimum wage effort provides low value. > It doesn’t particularly matter how much stocking shelves “is worth”; if you are alive, you don’t deserve to live in squalor and poverty in the richest country in the world. Why? You're implying that being born in one place or another changes what you 'deserve' as a human being. That's an interesting, but scary line of thought!

throwaway_1asdf 9y ago
I'll hop in. Net value-add across the entire chain doesn't imply local value-add. And it's deeply short-sighted to be fine with certain sectors of people collapsing so long as the GDP has a net increase. Two individual actors agreeing to a price doesn't make the price fair, and it ignores the larger economic/political arena that surrounds them. Following the MRI example: nobody in this thread is suggesting that those don't provide value. One poster is suggesting that such expensive operations should be subsidized through other mechanisms that take the larger economic/political arena into account (living, capable workers provide more value than sick/dead ones). The other poster is suggesting that a low-wage laborer doesn't deserve to have an MRI because they can't individually afford it. The latter is a weak argument intellectually (let's not even _try_ to develop new mechanisms that include more people), morally, and economically (assumes that markets are free, efficient, and devoid of history).
matt4077 9y ago
You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I disagree with that position, but it isn't completely unreasonable. But your argument simply "proves too much". Your definition of "agreement", for example, includes a hostage agreeing to pay the ransom. It would also cover child labor, any form of discrimination, selling yourself into slavery, the abolishment of all labor standards including safety laws, shrink-wrap TOCs, non-compete clauses, forced arbitration for all disputes etc. etc.
- lolsal 9y ago
  > You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. I'm not. > There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I myself wouldn't agree that the US economic system is totally fair - there are cheaters/liars/coercion/exploitation everywhere. There are lots of things that are unfair, but choosing to work for minimum wage is not one of those things. An entrepreneur making 10000 more than someone else in the chain is also not one of those things, in my opinion. > But your argument simply "proves too much". Your definition of "agreement", for example, includes a hostage agreeing to pay the ransom. It would also cover child labor, any form of discrimination, selling yourself into slavery, the abolishment of all labor standards including safety laws, shrink-wrap TOCs, non-compete clauses, forced arbitration for all disputes etc. etc I'm deliberately excluding situations like this where actors are being coerced, so my examples do not include hostages, child labor, slavery, etc. Those are crimes for a reason and excluded here. See my original comment for where I omitted acts of coercion.