3 ms·

Moreover, I'm finding this notion that some economic actors have more "moral" right to a big slice of the profit-pie than others really hard to pin down. As in,

Moreover, I'm finding this notion that some economic actors have more "moral" right to a big slice of the profit-pie than others really hard to pin down. As in, it sure seems like the idea collapses as soon as you breathe in its direction, unless I'm missing something big. [EDIT] that is, I don't follow why it's fine (presumably) for companies to seek to maximize returns, negotiating as a large block of people pooling their labor and capital, but not for workers to do that.

toasterlovin 7y ago
I own a business. I have undertaken lots of work and risk to get this business off the ground. Why should someone else, who has risked nothing, be entitled to anything other than a reasonable work environment and wages that both parties agree to if I decide to hire them?
- shantly 7y ago
  Why shouldn't they find a way to negotiate from a stronger position and gain a higher price for their time, if they can? Wouldn't you, negotiating a contract for your businesses services with another? Entitled's got nothing to do with it.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    If unions are just about extracting higher wages and not about combatting injustice, then, IMO, labor organizing should not be protected by law, since it's desired end is to use the threat of financial harm to force companies and individuals to enter into arrangements that they would not obtain otherwise. Should a company's suppliers enjoy legal protection so that they can band together for the purpose of using threat of financial harm to extract higher prices from the company and preventing the company from doing business with other suppliers?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  There's an information imbalance. Free markets only function correct with complete information. You as an employer have access to data on market trends that I as an employee do not. One function of unions is to remove that imbalance, either by removing the ability to negotiate entirely, or by providing employees with more complete information. This leads to a more efficient labor market. Presumably an efficient allocation of labor is what you want, right?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Employees don't ever look at job boards?

toasterlovin 7y ago

I own a business. I have undertaken lots of work and risk to get this business off the ground. Why should someone else, who has risked nothing, be entitled to anything other than a reasonable work environment and wages that both parties agree to if I decide to hire them?

shantly 7y ago
Why shouldn't they find a way to negotiate from a stronger position and gain a higher price for their time, if they can? Wouldn't you, negotiating a contract for your businesses services with another? Entitled's got nothing to do with it.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  If unions are just about extracting higher wages and not about combatting injustice, then, IMO, labor organizing should not be protected by law, since it's desired end is to use the threat of financial harm to force companies and individuals to enter into arrangements that they would not obtain otherwise. Should a company's suppliers enjoy legal protection so that they can band together for the purpose of using threat of financial harm to extract higher prices from the company and preventing the company from doing business with other suppliers?
joshuamorton 7y ago
There's an information imbalance. Free markets only function correct with complete information. You as an employer have access to data on market trends that I as an employee do not. One function of unions is to remove that imbalance, either by removing the ability to negotiate entirely, or by providing employees with more complete information. This leads to a more efficient labor market. Presumably an efficient allocation of labor is what you want, right?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Employees don't ever look at job boards?