3 ms·

So the market has spoken and the business is unsustainable

by fifnir 8y ago

bayesian_horse 8y ago
Nope, those businesses are sustainable, they just don't pay higher wages to hire more people because that would be unsustainable.
- fifnir 8y ago
  If I put sawdust in the bread i make to "make my business sustainable" I'll end up in jail, why is exploiting my workers more acceptable than that? "well yeah but the workers consented " People do a lot of things when desperate, that shouldn't inform how we design our society
  - logicchains 8y ago
    Killing such companies doesn't create better-paying jobs for the workers, it just leaves them unemployed. What gives you the right to "design" how these workers spend their time; maybe they'd prefer to be exploited than jobless? Ultimately the worker is payed by the company's customers, and if the law asks consumers to pay more than they're willing to pay for the workers' service, they'll simply go without the service.
    - fifnir 8y ago
      > What gives you the right to "design" how these workers spend their time; maybe they'd prefer to be exploited than jobless? Jeeeeeesus christ, how am I designing how they spend their time? How can you detect lack of freedom in saying "you can't work for unlivable salaries" but not in "I only pay unlivable salaries because if you dont want these crubs there's other more desperate people". > Ultimately the worker is payed by the company's customers, No, no, they are paid by the owners who decide what slice of the income to allocate to salaries. The customers pay the product and walk away, they don't know anything about the internal workings of a company >and if the law asks consumers to pay more than they're willing to pay for the workers' service, The law asks the boss to pay livable salary, the end price has nothing to do with the law. If the service cannot be offered at competitive prices while offering livable wages, it's not a sustainable business
      - logicchains 8y ago
        >Jeeeeeesus christ, how am I designing how they spend their time? They want to do some job for money and you're telling them "no, it pays too little, you're not allowed to do that job, you should be on welfare or find another job instead!". >No, no, they are paid by the owners who decide what slice of the income to allocate to salaries. The customers pay the product and walk away, they don't know anything about the internal workings of a company The income of the company is connected to the value generated by the workers it employs. An owner of a law firm can pays its employees much better than an owner of a fast food restaurant, because people are willing to pay more for lawyers than they are for fast food service. If the law forced restaurant owners to pay their workers as much as a law firm has to pay its workers, most restaurants would go out of business because people simply aren't willing to pay as much for restaurant service as they are for lawyers. >The law asks the boss to pay livable salary, the end price has nothing to do with the law. If the service cannot be offered at competitive prices while offering livable wages, it's not a sustainable business The maximum salary someone can expect is proportional to how much value they can generate for people. If the law requires someone to be paid much more than the maximuim amount of value they can generate given their skills/abilities at the time, then people will simply choose to forgo that service. If you had to pay someone $200/hour to clean your windows, would you do that, or would you clean them yourselves / let them remain uncleaned? Minimum wage laws don't create jobs; the minimum wage is always zero (if nobody thinks someone can produce enough value to justify paying them the minimum wage, nobody will pay/hire them). Feel free to declare low-paying jobs "unsustainable", but note that the alternative to such jobs in many cases isn't livable wages, it's no wages, or welfare.
        fifnir 8y ago
        > They want to do some job for money and you're telling them "no, it pays too little, you're not allowed to do that job, you should be on welfare or find another job instead!". The idea that they need to be on some form of welfare ANYWAY doesn't bother you ? > If the law forced restaurant owners to pay their workers as much as a law firm has to pay its workers, most restaurants would go out of business because people simply aren't willing to pay as much for restaurant service as they are for lawyers. And if the southern states couldn't have slaves the economy would collapse and if people could strike, no business can survive and if you have to pay immigrants the same salary as locals, no business can survive and if they pass anti-sweatshop laws , no business can survive and if you can't fire them for unionizing , no business can survive and if you can't hire children , no business can survive and if you pay them for ONLY 40h per week , no business can survive and if you pay women equally , no business can survive it has been the same excuse forever, if we give rights the market will crash, and yet every time instead of crushing it just keeps blooming... weird.
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      There is no objective standard for "exploitation". We design arbitrary ones, and even those have to be enforced (minimum wages, for example). And you are right, higher prices lead to less consumption. Basically any employee contract is a cooperation between two parties leading to a shared benefit of that cooperation. How that benefit is partitioned between the two parties is a matter of negotiation and negotiation power.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    Again, these businesses are sustainable, proven by the fact that they are surviving, even though they say they can't find enough workers to hire. They just don't see any benefit in increasing pay, maybe because that would make them unsustainable. Wages below a certain standard of poverty are a different issue, and those aren't the jobs with hiring problems anyway.

So the market has spoken and the business is unsustainable

by fifnir 8y ago

So the market has spoken and the business is unsustainable

Nope, those businesses are sustainable, they just don't pay higher wages to hire more people because that would be unsustainable.

fifnir 8y ago
If I put sawdust in the bread i make to "make my business sustainable" I'll end up in jail, why is exploiting my workers more acceptable than that? "well yeah but the workers consented " People do a lot of things when desperate, that shouldn't inform how we design our society
- logicchains 8y ago
  Killing such companies doesn't create better-paying jobs for the workers, it just leaves them unemployed. What gives you the right to "design" how these workers spend their time; maybe they'd prefer to be exploited than jobless? Ultimately the worker is payed by the company's customers, and if the law asks consumers to pay more than they're willing to pay for the workers' service, they'll simply go without the service.
  - fifnir 8y ago
    > What gives you the right to "design" how these workers spend their time; maybe they'd prefer to be exploited than jobless? Jeeeeeesus christ, how am I designing how they spend their time? How can you detect lack of freedom in saying "you can't work for unlivable salaries" but not in "I only pay unlivable salaries because if you dont want these crubs there's other more desperate people". > Ultimately the worker is payed by the company's customers, No, no, they are paid by the owners who decide what slice of the income to allocate to salaries. The customers pay the product and walk away, they don't know anything about the internal workings of a company >and if the law asks consumers to pay more than they're willing to pay for the workers' service, The law asks the boss to pay livable salary, the end price has nothing to do with the law. If the service cannot be offered at competitive prices while offering livable wages, it's not a sustainable business
    - logicchains 8y ago
      >Jeeeeeesus christ, how am I designing how they spend their time? They want to do some job for money and you're telling them "no, it pays too little, you're not allowed to do that job, you should be on welfare or find another job instead!". >No, no, they are paid by the owners who decide what slice of the income to allocate to salaries. The customers pay the product and walk away, they don't know anything about the internal workings of a company The income of the company is connected to the value generated by the workers it employs. An owner of a law firm can pays its employees much better than an owner of a fast food restaurant, because people are willing to pay more for lawyers than they are for fast food service. If the law forced restaurant owners to pay their workers as much as a law firm has to pay its workers, most restaurants would go out of business because people simply aren't willing to pay as much for restaurant service as they are for lawyers. >The law asks the boss to pay livable salary, the end price has nothing to do with the law. If the service cannot be offered at competitive prices while offering livable wages, it's not a sustainable business The maximum salary someone can expect is proportional to how much value they can generate for people. If the law requires someone to be paid much more than the maximuim amount of value they can generate given their skills/abilities at the time, then people will simply choose to forgo that service. If you had to pay someone $200/hour to clean your windows, would you do that, or would you clean them yourselves / let them remain uncleaned? Minimum wage laws don't create jobs; the minimum wage is always zero (if nobody thinks someone can produce enough value to justify paying them the minimum wage, nobody will pay/hire them). Feel free to declare low-paying jobs "unsustainable", but note that the alternative to such jobs in many cases isn't livable wages, it's no wages, or welfare.
      - fifnir 8y ago
        > They want to do some job for money and you're telling them "no, it pays too little, you're not allowed to do that job, you should be on welfare or find another job instead!". The idea that they need to be on some form of welfare ANYWAY doesn't bother you ? > If the law forced restaurant owners to pay their workers as much as a law firm has to pay its workers, most restaurants would go out of business because people simply aren't willing to pay as much for restaurant service as they are for lawyers. And if the southern states couldn't have slaves the economy would collapse and if people could strike, no business can survive and if you have to pay immigrants the same salary as locals, no business can survive and if they pass anti-sweatshop laws , no business can survive and if you can't fire them for unionizing , no business can survive and if you can't hire children , no business can survive and if you pay them for ONLY 40h per week , no business can survive and if you pay women equally , no business can survive it has been the same excuse forever, if we give rights the market will crash, and yet every time instead of crushing it just keeps blooming... weird.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    There is no objective standard for "exploitation". We design arbitrary ones, and even those have to be enforced (minimum wages, for example). And you are right, higher prices lead to less consumption. Basically any employee contract is a cooperation between two parties leading to a shared benefit of that cooperation. How that benefit is partitioned between the two parties is a matter of negotiation and negotiation power.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Again, these businesses are sustainable, proven by the fact that they are surviving, even though they say they can't find enough workers to hire. They just don't see any benefit in increasing pay, maybe because that would make them unsustainable. Wages below a certain standard of poverty are a different issue, and those aren't the jobs with hiring problems anyway.