4 ms·

> Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows -

> Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows - "I chose this politician" or "I chose this employer". This is what I take issue with. The restriction of options in democracy is a part of the design of the system and ultimately related to democracy's purpose as a decision-forcing mechanism. The losing side of the polity is deprived by design. In a market the number of options available is (subject to physical limits) a function of the number of people who choose to provide options. There is not a corresponding artificial limit on choice, rather there are as many choices as society and the planet can support. > Unlike choosing a politician, you need to choose an employer. Unlike choosing an employer, if you do not choose a politician, one will be chosen for you. > This makes the stakes higher The stakes are higher in politics because of their sanctioned ability to use force to modify the behavior of others. > Choosing is not enough, the employer also needs to choose you. This is a good thing as it ensures that the relationship is mutually satisfactory rather than a unilateral relationship like slavery. > And despite that, most people believe in a just-world fallacy in which your job record and position in life is made out of your choices, and you deserve what you get. To the extent that there is a free market in employment, that is true. to the extent that the markets are controlled by politics, that is a fallacy. > Everyone gets what the class of capital-owners has chosen. Wrong. We just established that these relationships are mutual. > Quid pro quo is the going rate only in the most farcical sense for a large portion of the population where the quid is your finite time and energy, and the quo is being housed and clothed. Its not a farce to suggest that they are being paid what their labor is worth. Also lets please be accurate, they aren't "fed and clothed" but given exchange media which they then choose to exchange for those things if they need and want to. > I certainly can't choose no employer. Quite the contrary, you most certainly can. You may not like the consequences of this choice but that's a matter of preference.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>In a market the number of options available is (subject to physical limits) a function of the number of people who choose to provide options. The function has another variable, which is access to and knowledge of capital. I can choose to employ someone, but it won't mean I have the means to do it. >The stakes are higher in politics because of their sanctioned ability to use force to modify the behavior of others. Economic coercion is also inescapable, but outside of small regulatory measures, not much can be done about it. Even some libertarians are coming around to the idea that economic 'nudges' are insidious. >ensures that the relationship is mutually satisfactory Yet even mutually satisfactory relationships can be exploitative; it's interesting that no comparison is made to feudalism or sharecropping - I suppose they're too similar to the current primary economic activity. >To the extent that there is a free market in employment, that is true. How do you know that? What ties economic outcome to just desert? I know of several instances of low economic reward for brilliance, and high economic reward which isn't tied to any personal achievement. Philanthropy (and indeed the human urge to help those less fortunate) go some way to disprove this; we recognize that the market doesn't always reward correctly - and I think in many cases it doesn't, and it's unclear to me what the freedom of the market has to do with justice for the employees. >We just established that these relationships are mutual. Mutual, but possibly exploitative or with great power imbalance. In the thread on Google employees unionizing, there was an interesting point made by someone; you have one bargaining chip with your employer, which is your employment, but the employer holds many more chips, because of all the people she employs. She can (generally) afford to lose you only because she has more leverage and more chips. >Its not a farce to suggest that they are being paid what their labor is worth. I think it's up for question, at least[0]. Quid pro quo only suggests one thing for another, and it's unclear to me that these are of equal value in the current system. >You may not like the consequences of this choice but that's a matter of preference. It's not mere preference, it's a human need to satisfy the base instinct to live - or at least live with some dignity. It's also a near-requirement; taxes make it so. Plenty of things are choices we simply "don't like the consequences of" - someone telling me to hand over my wallet or have my legs broken (and get some food and clothing in return) is also just a "matter of preference" and I "won't like the consequences". Some would even choose the latter. When you think of "can" outside a metaphysical free will question and investigate further into capabilities[1] and structural pressures, the picture is much less clear - and I think it's a little dishonest to interpret "can" in a way which implies it's like choosing chocolate or vanilla (and I just happen to be pushed toward chocolate). [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1024529418809067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/102452941880906... [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > The function has another variable, which is access to and knowledge of capital. I can choose to employ someone, but it won't mean I have the means to do it. its true, in a restricted or regulated market, access to capital may be limited. > Economic coercion is also inescapable I'm not familiar with this term and the search engine brought up definitions from international politics. > Yet even mutually satisfactory relationships can be exploitative; it's interesting that no comparison is made to feudalism or sharecropping - I suppose they're too similar to the current primary economic activity. I'm not sure how you're defining "exploitative" but you seem to be discounting the interests of the parties to the transaction. I consider that to be poor argumentation and it leaves me unpersuaded. The comparison to sharecropping and feudalism is apt and I think it would be instructive to see why you think they're similar. > How do you know that? What ties economic outcome to just desert? Because ethical considerations that treat each party as an autonomous agent are satisfied. > I know of several instances of low economic reward for brilliance, and high economic reward which isn't tied to any personal achievement. Thats your opinion, when you're the one writing the checks, you get to decide what size to make them. > Philanthropy (and indeed the human urge to help those less fortunate) go some way to disprove this; we recognize that the market doesn't always reward correctly - and I think in many cases it doesn't, and it's unclear to me what the freedom of the market has to do with justice for the employees. Of course we don't always agree with the outcome of market activity, we can imagine better possible worlds without the material constraints the market is solving for. But the market allows for the employees (and consumers, and everyone else) to select for the best possible available deal given material and social constraints. The justice comes in not forcing them to make any deals if they don't want to. > Mutual, but possibly exploitative or with great power imbalance. That really depends on what kind of power you're referring to. In a free market, when each party has the ability to terminate the relationship, then both parties are equally powerful in their ability to walk away. This ensures the relationship is mutually beneficial and therefore a Pareto improvement. > you have one bargaining chip with your employer, which is your employment, but the employer holds many more chips, because of all the people she employs. She can (generally) afford to lose you only because she has more leverage and more chips. Yes and the employee has the capacity to make much more money because of their access to capital that they aren't responsible for, they can do one thing well and rely on the capitalist to bundle all the associated parts into a deliverable product, and they get inside access to a profitable company. Some people are more skilled, some are more talented, some have more stuff. Some are good at putting it all together and driving it at a goal. > it's unclear to me that these are of equal value in the current system. Value is subjective. Its unclear to me why you would even be in a position to tell two parties that their mutual employment transaction was exploitation without knowing the specifics. > It's not mere preference, it's a human need to satisfy the base instinct to live - or at least live with some dignity. It's also a near-requirement; taxes make it so. Plenty of things are choices we simply "don't like the consequences of" - someone telling me to hand over my wallet or have my legs broken (and get some food and clothing in return) is also just a "matter of preference" and I "won't like the consequences". Some would even choose the latter. Well if you're telling me you want to live a long time, then yeah someone is going to have to grow food, purify water, and put a roof up for you. I don't know why people always pull this emotional sleight-of-hand about calling employment "slavery" and chattering on and on about being forced to toil in a factory on some fatcat's toolroom lathe; and when you point out that lathe operator is a skilled job making well over a living wage and that no one is forcing you to work in a factory in the US anyway, we get this rhetorical two-step where we get the sob story about human dignity and starvation; when what you're really talking about is eating food that other people labored to create without allowing them the basic human right of deciding how much their labor is worth. > When you think of "can" outside a metaphysical free will question and investigate further into capabilities[1] and structural pressures, the picture is much less clear - and I think it's a little dishonest to interpret "can" in a way which implies it's like choosing chocolate or vanilla (and I just happen to be pushed toward chocolate). It's a preference, just one that accords with long-developed evolutionary pressures. You prefer to eat because all the humans who didn't prefer to eat as much as the people today were outcompeted. So it's not like chocolate or vanilla, but it's not like having your legs broken either. Its just a biological/physical set of facts that you want to stay alive, you need to eat to stay alive, and someone has to make the food. In a market economy, anyone with means can make food. In a regulated market economy, anyone with means and regulatory permission can make food. In a planned economy, only those with the planners' permission can make food.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>In a market the number of options available is (subject to physical limits) a function of the number of people who choose to provide options. The function has another variable, which is access to and knowledge of capital. I can choose to employ someone, but it won't mean I have the means to do it. >The stakes are higher in politics because of their sanctioned ability to use force to modify the behavior of others. Economic coercion is also inescapable, but outside of small regulatory measures, not much can be done about it. Even some libertarians are coming around to the idea that economic 'nudges' are insidious. >ensures that the relationship is mutually satisfactory Yet even mutually satisfactory relationships can be exploitative; it's interesting that no comparison is made to feudalism or sharecropping - I suppose they're too similar to the current primary economic activity. >To the extent that there is a free market in employment, that is true. How do you know that? What ties economic outcome to just desert? I know of several instances of low economic reward for brilliance, and high economic reward which isn't tied to any personal achievement. Philanthropy (and indeed the human urge to help those less fortunate) go some way to disprove this; we recognize that the market doesn't always reward correctly - and I think in many cases it doesn't, and it's unclear to me what the freedom of the market has to do with justice for the employees. >We just established that these relationships are mutual. Mutual, but possibly exploitative or with great power imbalance. In the thread on Google employees unionizing, there was an interesting point made by someone; you have one bargaining chip with your employer, which is your employment, but the employer holds many more chips, because of all the people she employs. She can (generally) afford to lose you only because she has more leverage and more chips. >Its not a farce to suggest that they are being paid what their labor is worth. I think it's up for question, at least[0]. Quid pro quo only suggests one thing for another, and it's unclear to me that these are of equal value in the current system. >You may not like the consequences of this choice but that's a matter of preference. It's not mere preference, it's a human need to satisfy the base instinct to live - or at least live with some dignity. It's also a near-requirement; taxes make it so. Plenty of things are choices we simply "don't like the consequences of" - someone telling me to hand over my wallet or have my legs broken (and get some food and clothing in return) is also just a "matter of preference" and I "won't like the consequences". Some would even choose the latter. When you think of "can" outside a metaphysical free will question and investigate further into capabilities[1] and structural pressures, the picture is much less clear - and I think it's a little dishonest to interpret "can" in a way which implies it's like choosing chocolate or vanilla (and I just happen to be pushed toward chocolate). [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1024529418809067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/102452941880906... [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The function has another variable, which is access to and knowledge of capital. I can choose to employ someone, but it won't mean I have the means to do it. its true, in a restricted or regulated market, access to capital may be limited. > Economic coercion is also inescapable I'm not familiar with this term and the search engine brought up definitions from international politics. > Yet even mutually satisfactory relationships can be exploitative; it's interesting that no comparison is made to feudalism or sharecropping - I suppose they're too similar to the current primary economic activity. I'm not sure how you're defining "exploitative" but you seem to be discounting the interests of the parties to the transaction. I consider that to be poor argumentation and it leaves me unpersuaded. The comparison to sharecropping and feudalism is apt and I think it would be instructive to see why you think they're similar. > How do you know that? What ties economic outcome to just desert? Because ethical considerations that treat each party as an autonomous agent are satisfied. > I know of several instances of low economic reward for brilliance, and high economic reward which isn't tied to any personal achievement. Thats your opinion, when you're the one writing the checks, you get to decide what size to make them. > Philanthropy (and indeed the human urge to help those less fortunate) go some way to disprove this; we recognize that the market doesn't always reward correctly - and I think in many cases it doesn't, and it's unclear to me what the freedom of the market has to do with justice for the employees. Of course we don't always agree with the outcome of market activity, we can imagine better possible worlds without the material constraints the market is solving for. But the market allows for the employees (and consumers, and everyone else) to select for the best possible available deal given material and social constraints. The justice comes in not forcing them to make any deals if they don't want to. > Mutual, but possibly exploitative or with great power imbalance. That really depends on what kind of power you're referring to. In a free market, when each party has the ability to terminate the relationship, then both parties are equally powerful in their ability to walk away. This ensures the relationship is mutually beneficial and therefore a Pareto improvement. > you have one bargaining chip with your employer, which is your employment, but the employer holds many more chips, because of all the people she employs. She can (generally) afford to lose you only because she has more leverage and more chips. Yes and the employee has the capacity to make much more money because of their access to capital that they aren't responsible for, they can do one thing well and rely on the capitalist to bundle all the associated parts into a deliverable product, and they get inside access to a profitable company. Some people are more skilled, some are more talented, some have more stuff. Some are good at putting it all together and driving it at a goal. > it's unclear to me that these are of equal value in the current system. Value is subjective. Its unclear to me why you would even be in a position to tell two parties that their mutual employment transaction was exploitation without knowing the specifics. > It's not mere preference, it's a human need to satisfy the base instinct to live - or at least live with some dignity. It's also a near-requirement; taxes make it so. Plenty of things are choices we simply "don't like the consequences of" - someone telling me to hand over my wallet or have my legs broken (and get some food and clothing in return) is also just a "matter of preference" and I "won't like the consequences". Some would even choose the latter. Well if you're telling me you want to live a long time, then yeah someone is going to have to grow food, purify water, and put a roof up for you. I don't know why people always pull this emotional sleight-of-hand about calling employment "slavery" and chattering on and on about being forced to toil in a factory on some fatcat's toolroom lathe; and when you point out that lathe operator is a skilled job making well over a living wage and that no one is forcing you to work in a factory in the US anyway, we get this rhetorical two-step where we get the sob story about human dignity and starvation; when what you're really talking about is eating food that other people labored to create without allowing them the basic human right of deciding how much their labor is worth. > When you think of "can" outside a metaphysical free will question and investigate further into capabilities[1] and structural pressures, the picture is much less clear - and I think it's a little dishonest to interpret "can" in a way which implies it's like choosing chocolate or vanilla (and I just happen to be pushed toward chocolate). It's a preference, just one that accords with long-developed evolutionary pressures. You prefer to eat because all the humans who didn't prefer to eat as much as the people today were outcompeted. So it's not like chocolate or vanilla, but it's not like having your legs broken either. Its just a biological/physical set of facts that you want to stay alive, you need to eat to stay alive, and someone has to make the food. In a market economy, anyone with means can make food. In a regulated market economy, anyone with means and regulatory permission can make food. In a planned economy, only those with the planners' permission can make food.