3 ms·

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 th

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.

harimau777 8y ago
My argument is that the unfairness comes from the fact that some people are able to make money off of natural resources (e.g. land) that they did not create or (in many cases) earn and are able to exclude others from doing so. This then leads to a situation in which many people do not have access to natural resources with which to make their own living and therefore their only choice is to work for people who do have those resources. In that sense their state of being employed by others instead of themselves is not voluntary.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>This then leads to a situation in which many people do not have access to natural resources with which to make their own living and therefore their only choice is to work for people who do have those resources. In that sense their state of being employed by others instead of themselves is not voluntary. People would have to work even if all land was divided equally across all people. Furthermore, there's no fundamental reason why every person born deserves to share equally in all natural resources. The act of being born does not add value to the world. A family can have 10 children per generation and massively increase the share of natural resources they control under your moral code. Finally, even if someone's share of natural resources is unfairly small, it doesn't follow that the person offering a job is violating their rights by offering one that doesn't meet some minimum standard. If you want to make a case that someone is being unfairly denied natural resources, then that should be the issue dealt with, by gathering evidence and proving the case in a court of law. The alleged injustuce shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to restrict other people's rights.

harimau777 8y ago

My argument is that the unfairness comes from the fact that some people are able to make money off of natural resources (e.g. land) that they did not create or (in many cases) earn and are able to exclude others from doing so. This then leads to a situation in which many people do not have access to natural resources with which to make their own living and therefore their only choice is to work for people who do have those resources. In that sense their state of being employed by others instead of themselves is not voluntary.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>This then leads to a situation in which many people do not have access to natural resources with which to make their own living and therefore their only choice is to work for people who do have those resources. In that sense their state of being employed by others instead of themselves is not voluntary. People would have to work even if all land was divided equally across all people. Furthermore, there's no fundamental reason why every person born deserves to share equally in all natural resources. The act of being born does not add value to the world. A family can have 10 children per generation and massively increase the share of natural resources they control under your moral code. Finally, even if someone's share of natural resources is unfairly small, it doesn't follow that the person offering a job is violating their rights by offering one that doesn't meet some minimum standard. If you want to make a case that someone is being unfairly denied natural resources, then that should be the issue dealt with, by gathering evidence and proving the case in a court of law. The alleged injustuce shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to restrict other people's rights.