2 ms·

>>When one party is negotiating from a position of strength (employers) and the other party is negotiating with their life and physical well being on the line (

>>When one party is negotiating from a position of strength (employers) and the other party is negotiating with their life and physical well being on the line (employees, especially those on the lower end of the pay scale) then the first party can take more value and profit from the transaction than if they were both negotiating for a net gain in value. I don't see how that could possibly be true. An employee has plenty of time to peruse offers in the marketplace before accepting one of them, and even more time after accepting one of them. Job market analysis is an extremely efficient task with modern job listing sites. A person can quickly assess the lay of the land as far as prevailing wages and required qualifications, and applying for the jobs is as easy as sending off an email with minor customization of the cover letter. The idea that a person would take a job that pays less than what they can fetch on the marketplace because they are poor by developed world standards seems like the kind of overly cynical and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory thinking that motivates so many ill-conceived mandates like minimum wage.

clavalle 9y ago
>An employee has plenty of time to peruse offers in the marketplace before accepting one of them, and even more time after accepting one of them. You seem to be extrapolating middle-class experience and choices to the working poor and below. The idea that the marketplace is immune to distortions caused by a well-founded fear of pain or existential threat seems like an pollyanna view and the type of thinking that leads to ill-conceived policy like removing worker protections because the market can do no wrong. People can and do get stuck in a treading-water situation where they simply try to feed themselves and their family and keep them housed and clothed at a minimum standard while working so much that finding another job or spending time improving their value to the marketplace is an unreachable dream. That's not to say I completely disagree with you. There are plenty of open questions. If basic survival and physical security was guaranteed for a population how many would take that minimum guarantee and just spend all of their free time on activities that benefit only themselves (making them the worst possible drain on society)? How many would find a suitable job or other activity that creates significant value for others but that doesn't make up for the resources spent on their minimum guarantees (making them a smaller drain on society)? How many would take the opportunity to improve their lot through more aggressive negotiations in the sale of their time and labor or through improving their value generation capacity through education or by taking bigger market risks to the point of contributing more than the societal investment? And, finally, how would each of these groups contribute to the whole in aggregate? Would it be a net gain? I think that is an open question and one that a lot of current ideology makes it very difficult to get real answers.

clavalle 9y ago

>An employee has plenty of time to peruse offers in the marketplace before accepting one of them, and even more time after accepting one of them. You seem to be extrapolating middle-class experience and choices to the working poor and below. The idea that the marketplace is immune to distortions caused by a well-founded fear of pain or existential threat seems like an pollyanna view and the type of thinking that leads to ill-conceived policy like removing worker protections because the market can do no wrong. People can and do get stuck in a treading-water situation where they simply try to feed themselves and their family and keep them housed and clothed at a minimum standard while working so much that finding another job or spending time improving their value to the marketplace is an unreachable dream. That's not to say I completely disagree with you. There are plenty of open questions. If basic survival and physical security was guaranteed for a population how many would take that minimum guarantee and just spend all of their free time on activities that benefit only themselves (making them the worst possible drain on society)? How many would find a suitable job or other activity that creates significant value for others but that doesn't make up for the resources spent on their minimum guarantees (making them a smaller drain on society)? How many would take the opportunity to improve their lot through more aggressive negotiations in the sale of their time and labor or through improving their value generation capacity through education or by taking bigger market risks to the point of contributing more than the societal investment? And, finally, how would each of these groups contribute to the whole in aggregate? Would it be a net gain? I think that is an open question and one that a lot of current ideology makes it very difficult to get real answers.