14 ms·

> reduction in wage theft is going to be mirrored by a drop in the amount of wealth available. In a situation where wage theft is happening and then it stops h

by 49531 8y ago

> reduction in wage theft is going to be mirrored by a drop in the amount of wealth available. In a situation where wage theft is happening and then it stops happening, the money doesn't get thrown in a garbage bin. The stolen money goes to the worker rather than the employer. If I got paid my average hourly rate for 10 unpaid hours per week, I'd make roughly $12,000 more per year than I do now. $12,000 which would go towards my student loans, or a down payment for a house, or just buying random shit. Instead that $12,000 goes to the corporation I work for. You might argue that they can do that to 10 people and afford to hire another engineer, which is great, except now we have a corporation who is subsidized by unpaid labor, not by being an effective corporation.

pbecotte 8y ago
So your employer pays 48k for 50 hours a week of labor. Yes, if they suddenly paid you 60k instead you'd be doing better. But that doesn't mean they benefit from unpaid labor, just that the current rate is less than you think it is.
- DFHippie 8y ago
  Somewhere there is a contract specifying the amount the corporation will pay and the worker will receive for an hour of work. It is the violation of this contract which makes it theft. This is also what makes driving someone else's car away, taking their wallet, or moving into their house theft. If someone walks off with your wallet, it isn't that you've misunderstood the legal conditions of your ownership of that wallet. The problem, in other words, is not in your understanding.
roenxi 8y ago
The money is only useful for the goods and services it can purchase. Labour conditions is a classic case of the government is mandating allocations of resources that a free market would not make; it isn't going to result in more goods and services being produced. The same workers are not going to produce more because of labour law enforcement. The three outcomes are: 1) Workers get a bigger proportion of a smaller total 2) Workers get the same proportion of a smaller total 3) Workers get a smaller proportion of a smaller total The pro-labour-laws types have to be very certain that they can force outcome 1, but there are 2 ways in 3 that the outcome is bad, on net, for workers. Especially if the job they were working in was the best option they had. Workers might even be getting less overall (through reduced job availability) when individual workers get more due to reductions in the number of jobs created.
- xapata 8y ago
  It's always possible that a policy will have a bad outcome. In this case, I'd like to run the experiment. My guess is that the dynamics will be good for the economy: more cash in the pockets of workers means more cash flow through the economy, more activity, more growth, everyone wins.

by 49531 8y ago

pbecotte 8y ago

So your employer pays 48k for 50 hours a week of labor. Yes, if they suddenly paid you 60k instead you'd be doing better. But that doesn't mean they benefit from unpaid labor, just that the current rate is less than you think it is.

DFHippie 8y ago
Somewhere there is a contract specifying the amount the corporation will pay and the worker will receive for an hour of work. It is the violation of this contract which makes it theft. This is also what makes driving someone else's car away, taking their wallet, or moving into their house theft. If someone walks off with your wallet, it isn't that you've misunderstood the legal conditions of your ownership of that wallet. The problem, in other words, is not in your understanding.

roenxi 8y ago

The money is only useful for the goods and services it can purchase. Labour conditions is a classic case of the government is mandating allocations of resources that a free market would not make; it isn't going to result in more goods and services being produced. The same workers are not going to produce more because of labour law enforcement. The three outcomes are: 1) Workers get a bigger proportion of a smaller total 2) Workers get the same proportion of a smaller total 3) Workers get a smaller proportion of a smaller total The pro-labour-laws types have to be very certain that they can force outcome 1, but there are 2 ways in 3 that the outcome is bad, on net, for workers. Especially if the job they were working in was the best option they had. Workers might even be getting less overall (through reduced job availability) when individual workers get more due to reductions in the number of jobs created.

xapata 8y ago
It's always possible that a policy will have a bad outcome. In this case, I'd like to run the experiment. My guess is that the dynamics will be good for the economy: more cash in the pockets of workers means more cash flow through the economy, more activity, more growth, everyone wins.