4 ms·

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 abl

by 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.

by tropo 8y ago

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.