3 ms·

I wouldn't agree with your version of the statement. A person's time is indeed intrinsically valuable -- to that person. Market value is how much their time is

I wouldn't agree with your version of the statement. A person's time is indeed intrinsically valuable -- to that person. Market value is how much their time is worth to other people; that depends on what they're doing with their time and under what circumstances. I think proposals for high minimum wages are trying to solve a real problem, but they're barking up the wrong tree. The problem is that many types of labor don't generate enough market value to earn a living. The one thing markets are really good for is establishing price signals that reflect how much one thing is valued relative to another thing. (This, however, does require a healthy, competitive market which often does not exist. For example: in "company towns", individual employers have so much market power that they don't have to pay wages that reflect the theoretical economic value of labor. When an industry is dominated by a few large players, collusion happens. Etc.) When pay is low because the labor just isn't that valuable, artificially propping up wage prices will cause substantial distortions and side effects downstream. After all, those wage prices get bundled into a lot of other pricing signals in the economy, all of which are interacting in a complex system. A far, far better approach is to simply supplement those workers' pay directly from the government, to bring them up to an appropriate income level. This isn't free of side effects either, but I would argue they are greatly reduced.

nybble41 4y ago
> A person's time is indeed intrinsically valuable -- to that person. That would explicitly make it extrinsically valuable, not intrinsically. The value is assigned subjectively from outside rather than an inherent property of the time itself. But then all value is really extrinsic, assigned by people to goods and not a property of the goods themselves. "Intrinsic value" does not exist. > For example: in "company towns", individual employers have so much market power that they don't have to pay wages that reflect the theoretical economic value of labor. They are paying wages which "reflect the theoretical economic value of labor". In particular, they are paying wages which exceed the perceived value (opportunity cost) of the labor to the employees. Even in a company town one is not compelled to work for the dominant employer—one can leave, or attempt to become self-sufficient, or start a competing company. There just isn't much demand-side competition for labor in that environment, so more of the surplus value accrues to the buyer rather than the sellers. Those who sympathize more with the employees would prefer the opposite, but that's just favoring one side over the other in negotiations. There's no sense attacking the employer here. If you want to improve the lives of those living in the company town, give them better options: more productive employment, for example, and loans to cover the cost of relocation. > A far, far better approach is to simply supplement those workers' pay directly from the government, to bring them up to an appropriate income level. Because paying people to remain in unproductive jobs always turns out so well… If a job can't pay "an appropriate income level" (i.e. an income level the employee—not some third party—considers worthwhile, and which covers their actual living expenses) without subsidies then it isn't worth doing. The existence of that job is a net loss to society. Not to mention that this is effectively a subsidy for cheapskate employers, who no longer need to pay market wages since someone else (mostly the middle class) is committed to making up the difference.

nybble41 4y ago

> A person's time is indeed intrinsically valuable -- to that person. That would explicitly make it extrinsically valuable, not intrinsically. The value is assigned subjectively from outside rather than an inherent property of the time itself. But then all value is really extrinsic, assigned by people to goods and not a property of the goods themselves. "Intrinsic value" does not exist. > For example: in "company towns", individual employers have so much market power that they don't have to pay wages that reflect the theoretical economic value of labor. They are paying wages which "reflect the theoretical economic value of labor". In particular, they are paying wages which exceed the perceived value (opportunity cost) of the labor to the employees. Even in a company town one is not compelled to work for the dominant employer—one can leave, or attempt to become self-sufficient, or start a competing company. There just isn't much demand-side competition for labor in that environment, so more of the surplus value accrues to the buyer rather than the sellers. Those who sympathize more with the employees would prefer the opposite, but that's just favoring one side over the other in negotiations. There's no sense attacking the employer here. If you want to improve the lives of those living in the company town, give them better options: more productive employment, for example, and loans to cover the cost of relocation. > A far, far better approach is to simply supplement those workers' pay directly from the government, to bring them up to an appropriate income level. Because paying people to remain in unproductive jobs always turns out so well… If a job can't pay "an appropriate income level" (i.e. an income level the employee—not some third party—considers worthwhile, and which covers their actual living expenses) without subsidies then it isn't worth doing. The existence of that job is a net loss to society. Not to mention that this is effectively a subsidy for cheapskate employers, who no longer need to pay market wages since someone else (mostly the middle class) is committed to making up the difference.