36 ms·

Because purchasing power parity has nothing to do with selling labour and work is what should be compensated. Purchasing power is none of the employer's busines

by a_imho 6y ago

Because purchasing power parity has nothing to do with selling labour and work is what should be compensated. Purchasing power is none of the employer's business. Purchasing power means what you want it to mean. Will Apple adjust it prices to reflect on the local markets?

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
You said this was a compelling moral argument. I don't believe the moral content is at all clear and give examples of why not. Would you mind responding to those? Apple prices have converged quite a lot - but note that the labor content of their products prices changes very little as everything is made in same factories in China. McDonalds (another multinational with a quite standardized product offering across markets) charges very different prices for the same product depending on local markets.
- a_imho 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why would it not be OK to receive the same compensation for the same work?
  - mavelikara 6y ago
    S/he is asking you, in reply, why it is OK for some people to get better purchasing power for the same economic contribution.
    - a_imho 6y ago
      The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. If the problem is that we want to ensure some kind of equality of outcome that is ill posed 1. Companies are not arbiters to define what that outcome should be. In fact, any such attempt boils down to the argument that the current status quo is the natural state of things and everything should stay that way. Trying to come up with a definition for local economy or local purchasing power is simply an exercise in encoding bias. 2. Plenty of products and services are priced without differentiation. For instance in the case of internet services this is probably close to 100%. Again, all these has nothing to do with selling X hours of labour for Y hourly rate.
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. That's nonsensical. You can trivially find examples of where the same goods cost different prices in different locations. Here's a really simple example. $5.79 will buy you a McDonald's Sausage Egg McMuffin meal in Montgomery AL. The same menu item is $6.71 in Los Angeles CA. The same money has less power to buy goods and services in Los Angeles than it does in Montgomery. You know this intuitively; the same way you know that a gallon of milk is more expensive in New York City than it is in Madison. I don't know why you're tying yourself up in knots to come to the opposite conclusion.
        a_imho 6y ago
        No, that is the definition given by wikipedia right in the first sentence, it is not a function of location. You can come up with your own definition of what you consider local (neighbourhood, city, county, state, country?) or cherrypick a basket you want to use as a base (McD), but that simply reflects your biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power

by a_imho 6y ago

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

You said this was a compelling moral argument. I don't believe the moral content is at all clear and give examples of why not. Would you mind responding to those? Apple prices have converged quite a lot - but note that the labor content of their products prices changes very little as everything is made in same factories in China. McDonalds (another multinational with a quite standardized product offering across markets) charges very different prices for the same product depending on local markets.

a_imho 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why would it not be OK to receive the same compensation for the same work?
- mavelikara 6y ago
  S/he is asking you, in reply, why it is OK for some people to get better purchasing power for the same economic contribution.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. If the problem is that we want to ensure some kind of equality of outcome that is ill posed 1. Companies are not arbiters to define what that outcome should be. In fact, any such attempt boils down to the argument that the current status quo is the natural state of things and everything should stay that way. Trying to come up with a definition for local economy or local purchasing power is simply an exercise in encoding bias. 2. Plenty of products and services are priced without differentiation. For instance in the case of internet services this is probably close to 100%. Again, all these has nothing to do with selling X hours of labour for Y hourly rate.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      >The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. That's nonsensical. You can trivially find examples of where the same goods cost different prices in different locations. Here's a really simple example. $5.79 will buy you a McDonald's Sausage Egg McMuffin meal in Montgomery AL. The same menu item is $6.71 in Los Angeles CA. The same money has less power to buy goods and services in Los Angeles than it does in Montgomery. You know this intuitively; the same way you know that a gallon of milk is more expensive in New York City than it is in Madison. I don't know why you're tying yourself up in knots to come to the opposite conclusion.
      - a_imho 6y ago
        No, that is the definition given by wikipedia right in the first sentence, it is not a function of location. You can come up with your own definition of what you consider local (neighbourhood, city, county, state, country?) or cherrypick a basket you want to use as a base (McD), but that simply reflects your biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power