4 ms·

I see what you are saying; however, I think those restrictions are often necessary due to to the dramatic difference in power between a corporation and an indiv

I see what you are saying; however, I think those restrictions are often necessary due to to the dramatic difference in power between a corporation and an individual employee. Since most people do not have the opportunity to support themselves anymore (because they cannot afford farmland or the capital to start their own business), for most people working for someone else is no longer voluntary. Therefore, I think those people must have the right to negotiate fair* working conditions with their employer. * I realize that the exact definition of what constitutes fair is going to differ between different people and political views. However, I think there are general principles that most people can agree on such as making enough to provide for ones family, a safe work environment, being treated with respect by the employer, and work hours that allow the employee to participate in other aspects of life.

tropo 8y ago
No, "fair" is more like a lack of fraud or coercion. It means that you get what you can manage without those, which is generally the market rate. You may be able to trade off pay, safety, respect, and hours. (give up some of one to get more of another) The deal you get comes from the value you bring. Getting more than your share, for example by coercion against the employer or by defrauding the employer, is definitely not fair.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I definitely agree that it is legitimate for an individual to trade off certain benefits of a job for others. I think the issue arrises when they either do not have the opportunity to actually make that decision (e.g. if all of the jobs they are able to get lack one of those traits) or if the overall split of benefits between the employer and employee is skewed (e.g. the business becomes more profitable but the increase in profit is not split with the employees).
  - tropo 8y ago
    Employees get their wages. They must be paid the market rate no matter if the business is profitable or not. If they aren't paid that, they leave. The business can't force employees to stay and work for less, even if the business is losing money. If the business had to share profit, then it would only be fair that it gets to share losses, forcing employees to stay and work like slaves... but we don't find that to be acceptable. Profit is the dream that drives entrepreneurs to take crazy risks to start businesses. Without that, they would not try, and jobs would not get created. There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. The least harmful way to do this is by enforcing the existence of competition, breaking up any business that gains excessive market share. One could draw the line at 15% for example, splitting any business with a greater market share. Another possibility is to persuade businesses to split themselves, perhaps via taxes based on market share. A danger is that innovation slows due to businesses avoiding hitting the market share limit.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. Another option is for the state to directly fund open-source software in sectors prone to monopolization. Then there will be competition, and if the open source software wins out and becomes the market standard, no profit gouging.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
Workers as a whole don't get more from having employers forced to offer above-market wages to their workers. Employers as a whole have a certain amount that they can afford to spend on labor expenses. Forcing them to spend more on that, or divide that spending between a fewer number of workers to pay each a higher wage, does not raise aggregate wages in the long run. The former does in the short run, but it comes at the expense of lower capital investment, which results in less company/productivity growth, and smaller future wage gains. The split between labor expenditure, or profit from selling services, and company profits, or profit from delaying compensation and personal consumption to found and invest in companies, has some optimal ratio that maximizes growth in productivity. The aggregate of all interactions of a free market will approach that optimal ratio as a result of the pursuit of profit aligning with the outcome of raising total productivity, while mandates to reduce company profits to raise wages won't. And growth in productivity is the source of almost all wage growth, and is the only sustainable source of wage growth. Sacrificing it is a huge strategic mistake for public welfare. As for the latter - hiring fewer workers and paying each more - it provides no short term net boost to wages, because the higher per worker compensation is neutralized by fewer workers being hired, and it reduces company performance, and with it, growth in GDP output and future labor expenditures. As for fairness, the only fair outcome is that both parties are free to accept or reject what the other offers. A fair wage is what the worker's service is actually worth based on supply and demand. Anything else is just some ideological judgment. It is unfair to use the threat of imprisonment to restrict someone from making an offer in the market. Force should always be used as a last resort, to punish and deter others from violating people's rights, and not as a policy tool to shape consensual human interaction and engineer some ideologically desired social outcome. The use of force means the imprisonment of those who do not comply. This is not a power that should be used against behaviour that is not unambigiously a violation of another party's rights. >>for most people working for someone else is no longer voluntary We must work to live. That is the nature of the world. It doesn't mean making an offer in the market, that others are free to accept if it is better than the next best offer they can find, is an act of coercion. Therefore there is no moral justification for prohibiting people from making offers that don't meet some arbitrary minimum standard. It's only ideology, that is designed to rationalize exerting totalitarian control over others, that says otherwise.

tropo 8y ago

No, "fair" is more like a lack of fraud or coercion. It means that you get what you can manage without those, which is generally the market rate. You may be able to trade off pay, safety, respect, and hours. (give up some of one to get more of another) The deal you get comes from the value you bring. Getting more than your share, for example by coercion against the employer or by defrauding the employer, is definitely not fair.

harimau777 8y ago
I definitely agree that it is legitimate for an individual to trade off certain benefits of a job for others. I think the issue arrises when they either do not have the opportunity to actually make that decision (e.g. if all of the jobs they are able to get lack one of those traits) or if the overall split of benefits between the employer and employee is skewed (e.g. the business becomes more profitable but the increase in profit is not split with the employees).
- tropo 8y ago
  Employees get their wages. They must be paid the market rate no matter if the business is profitable or not. If they aren't paid that, they leave. The business can't force employees to stay and work for less, even if the business is losing money. If the business had to share profit, then it would only be fair that it gets to share losses, forcing employees to stay and work like slaves... but we don't find that to be acceptable. Profit is the dream that drives entrepreneurs to take crazy risks to start businesses. Without that, they would not try, and jobs would not get created. There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. The least harmful way to do this is by enforcing the existence of competition, breaking up any business that gains excessive market share. One could draw the line at 15% for example, splitting any business with a greater market share. Another possibility is to persuade businesses to split themselves, perhaps via taxes based on market share. A danger is that innovation slows due to businesses avoiding hitting the market share limit.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. Another option is for the state to directly fund open-source software in sectors prone to monopolization. Then there will be competition, and if the open source software wins out and becomes the market standard, no profit gouging.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

Workers as a whole don't get more from having employers forced to offer above-market wages to their workers. Employers as a whole have a certain amount that they can afford to spend on labor expenses. Forcing them to spend more on that, or divide that spending between a fewer number of workers to pay each a higher wage, does not raise aggregate wages in the long run. The former does in the short run, but it comes at the expense of lower capital investment, which results in less company/productivity growth, and smaller future wage gains. The split between labor expenditure, or profit from selling services, and company profits, or profit from delaying compensation and personal consumption to found and invest in companies, has some optimal ratio that maximizes growth in productivity. The aggregate of all interactions of a free market will approach that optimal ratio as a result of the pursuit of profit aligning with the outcome of raising total productivity, while mandates to reduce company profits to raise wages won't. And growth in productivity is the source of almost all wage growth, and is the only sustainable source of wage growth. Sacrificing it is a huge strategic mistake for public welfare. As for the latter - hiring fewer workers and paying each more - it provides no short term net boost to wages, because the higher per worker compensation is neutralized by fewer workers being hired, and it reduces company performance, and with it, growth in GDP output and future labor expenditures. As for fairness, the only fair outcome is that both parties are free to accept or reject what the other offers. A fair wage is what the worker's service is actually worth based on supply and demand. Anything else is just some ideological judgment. It is unfair to use the threat of imprisonment to restrict someone from making an offer in the market. Force should always be used as a last resort, to punish and deter others from violating people's rights, and not as a policy tool to shape consensual human interaction and engineer some ideologically desired social outcome. The use of force means the imprisonment of those who do not comply. This is not a power that should be used against behaviour that is not unambigiously a violation of another party's rights. >>for most people working for someone else is no longer voluntary We must work to live. That is the nature of the world. It doesn't mean making an offer in the market, that others are free to accept if it is better than the next best offer they can find, is an act of coercion. Therefore there is no moral justification for prohibiting people from making offers that don't meet some arbitrary minimum standard. It's only ideology, that is designed to rationalize exerting totalitarian control over others, that says otherwise.