3 ms·

> employment in general is You're absolutely, utterly wrong. Voluntary employment only exists because it isn't a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade is not a z

> employment in general is You're absolutely, utterly wrong. Voluntary employment only exists because it isn't a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade is not a zero-sum game, by definition. And any value generated in excess of your cost is capture by you and the employer based on the price elasticity of the demand for labor.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Can it really be called "voluntary" if you starve if you don't have a job?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality. And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      Wrong again. This isn't "logic", this is well established science. It's like gravity, you can dismiss it all you want, but if you jump out of the window, you'll still end up on the floor. And you clearly didn't understand what price elasticity of demand means.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "This isn't "logic", this is well established science." No, it very much is not. "It's like gravity" Gravity behaves the same way every time you observe it. Economic activity most certainly does not. "And you clearly didn't understand what price elasticity of demand means." Because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand?
        ucaetano 8y ago
        > No, it very much is not. Well, Nobel-prize winners and millions of economists around the world disagree with you, but I'm sure that your personal opinion trumps all of that. > Because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand? No, because you mixed "value of labor at the time" and "price elasticity of labor demand". If you had understood what price elasticity of labor demand meant, you wouldn't mix the two. If cost of labor is X, demand for labor is Y, then "value of labor at the time" is X and "price elasticity of labor demand" is dY/dX.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Well, Nobel-prize winners and millions of economists around the world disagree with you, but I'm sure that your personal opinion trumps all of that." Very few economists would classify what they do as a science, like biology or chemistry. And no, I didn't mix anything up. I disagreed with you on your point. But because you can't back up your point, you have to resort to petty retorts. The fact of the matter is, what most economists have traditionally believed regarding wage growth and tightening labor markets has been turned on its head, due to many companies complaining about labor shortages yet there not being any real gains in wages.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Can it really be called "voluntary" if you starve if you don't have a job?

ucaetano 8y ago
Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality. And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Wrong again. This isn't "logic", this is well established science. It's like gravity, you can dismiss it all you want, but if you jump out of the window, you'll still end up on the floor. And you clearly didn't understand what price elasticity of demand means.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "This isn't "logic", this is well established science." No, it very much is not. "It's like gravity" Gravity behaves the same way every time you observe it. Economic activity most certainly does not. "And you clearly didn't understand what price elasticity of demand means." Because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand?
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        > No, it very much is not. Well, Nobel-prize winners and millions of economists around the world disagree with you, but I'm sure that your personal opinion trumps all of that. > Because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand? No, because you mixed "value of labor at the time" and "price elasticity of labor demand". If you had understood what price elasticity of labor demand meant, you wouldn't mix the two. If cost of labor is X, demand for labor is Y, then "value of labor at the time" is X and "price elasticity of labor demand" is dY/dX.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Well, Nobel-prize winners and millions of economists around the world disagree with you, but I'm sure that your personal opinion trumps all of that." Very few economists would classify what they do as a science, like biology or chemistry. And no, I didn't mix anything up. I disagreed with you on your point. But because you can't back up your point, you have to resort to petty retorts. The fact of the matter is, what most economists have traditionally believed regarding wage growth and tightening labor markets has been turned on its head, due to many companies complaining about labor shortages yet there not being any real gains in wages.