3 ms·

By that logic, any employee anywhere is a slave.

by swebs 6y ago

pietrovismara 6y ago
Pretty much. You're only doing a free and willing exchange when you have an alternative. Otherwise by definition, there is no choice. Not that this means employers are slavers, it's the system that enslaves people, but employers gladly take advantage of it. Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal. It feels like you're acknowledging what I'm saying as true but you're not happy about it.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  I don't think having alternatives is the criterion for a free choice. The problem with "free" is like one of the other commentators suggests. If you get two guys offering the same terrible deal, you're no better off, but the critic can tell you you had a choice. And it's turtles all the way down, package the choices as one and the critic will tell you to unbundle them. Instead we have to look at cultural context. What people think is reasonable changes. At one point, people thought it was just fine that if you couldn't pay your debts, you had to work it off, and your kids would inherit that debt. We also thought it was just fine to let kids work in mines, and that labourers should work every day minus Sunday. "Whatever you can get someone to shake hands on" (which someone else is essentially saying) is another one of those ideas that seems simple, but actually there are social constraints on what you can agree. It's inviting to pretend that whatever the person agrees to is free, but actually this isn't the case and historically hasn't been.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal..." From the HN guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." In other words, complaining about being downvoted is a legitimate reason for having your comment further downvoted.
mgkimsal 6y ago
There was a huge honking "IF" at the start of that comment... > If these workers don't have other choice but to take that miserable paycheck or starve... Plenty of people everywhere have other choices between one employer or starving. So, no, by that logic, any employee anywhere is not a slave.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  There also needs to be a meaningful distinction between the choices. If every employer is offering the same devil's bargain, and every one leaves the person at the edge of starvation, then the freedom to choose which devil to deal with doesn't mean much.
harimau777 6y ago
That's one of the arguments behind Georgism. If someone is not able to own enough land in order to provide for themselves then working for someone else isn't actually a free exchange.

By that logic, any employee anywhere is a slave.

by swebs 6y ago

By that logic, any employee anywhere is a slave.

Pretty much. You're only doing a free and willing exchange when you have an alternative. Otherwise by definition, there is no choice. Not that this means employers are slavers, it's the system that enslaves people, but employers gladly take advantage of it. Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal. It feels like you're acknowledging what I'm saying as true but you're not happy about it.

lordnacho 6y ago
I don't think having alternatives is the criterion for a free choice. The problem with "free" is like one of the other commentators suggests. If you get two guys offering the same terrible deal, you're no better off, but the critic can tell you you had a choice. And it's turtles all the way down, package the choices as one and the critic will tell you to unbundle them. Instead we have to look at cultural context. What people think is reasonable changes. At one point, people thought it was just fine that if you couldn't pay your debts, you had to work it off, and your kids would inherit that debt. We also thought it was just fine to let kids work in mines, and that labourers should work every day minus Sunday. "Whatever you can get someone to shake hands on" (which someone else is essentially saying) is another one of those ideas that seems simple, but actually there are social constraints on what you can agree. It's inviting to pretend that whatever the person agrees to is free, but actually this isn't the case and historically hasn't been.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal..." From the HN guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." In other words, complaining about being downvoted is a legitimate reason for having your comment further downvoted.

mgkimsal 6y ago

There was a huge honking "IF" at the start of that comment... > If these workers don't have other choice but to take that miserable paycheck or starve... Plenty of people everywhere have other choices between one employer or starving. So, no, by that logic, any employee anywhere is not a slave.

MereInterest 6y ago
There also needs to be a meaningful distinction between the choices. If every employer is offering the same devil's bargain, and every one leaves the person at the edge of starvation, then the freedom to choose which devil to deal with doesn't mean much.

harimau777 6y ago

That's one of the arguments behind Georgism. If someone is not able to own enough land in order to provide for themselves then working for someone else isn't actually a free exchange.