3 ms·

> which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. Again, had you taken the time to read the full context, you would know the

> which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. Again, had you taken the time to read the full context, you would know the statement was made with respect to not being able to find workers to hire. How can you underpay, let alone pay at all, workers which do not exist? You can't. This has nothing to do with the original topic. > The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers If the workers are not adequately compensated then there must be debt. You fundamentally cannot withhold something in an exchange without accumulating debt. Perhaps you mean the workers have voluntarily forgiven any debt that was outstanding? Indeed, that is an option available to them, but not something workers usually take kindly. > it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits. What is fair is established when to exchanging parties reach an agreement on what they both consider to be an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked. Debt is literally a measure of how far one party has been unfair to another. > Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement. You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn out discussion. Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding. Even where intentions are pure, it is a self-centred position, and self-centredness is not faithful to the other participants.

lossolo 3y ago
Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes. I understand your perspective, but it's important to clarify some points: > You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn-out discussion. While understanding the current state is crucial, meaningful change often requires open and constructive discussions to explore various perspectives and potential solutions. Engaging in dialogue allows us to gain insights from different viewpoints and fosters a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. > Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding. Advocating for positive change can also involve presenting well-considered ideas and supporting them with evidence and reasoning. Engaging in open discussions allows us to better comprehend the underlying issues and work towards consensus on positive improvements for all parties involved. > What is fair is established when two exchanging parties have reached an agreement on what they both consider an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement, then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked. Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. It involves ongoing relationships between employers and employees. While formal agreements are crucial, there is also a moral and ethical dimension to consider in how workers are treated over time, especially in light of the company's profits and growth. There is important additional context that needs to be considered when discussing fair exchanges in the labor market. In many cases, especially in poor countries or among economically vulnerable individuals, the concept of "equal exchange of value" might not be applicable in the traditional sense. For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. When individuals are in desperate need of employment to survive, they might accept any job opportunity presented to them, even if the compensation is not sufficient. In such cases, the power dynamics between employers and employees are significantly skewed, making it challenging for workers to demand fair wages. This imbalance can lead to underpayment and exploitation, and it may not be a result of an equal and voluntary agreement between the parties. Recognizing this context is essential to understanding the complexity of labor issues and the intrinsic link between unfairness and debt that you mentioned earlier. It highlights the need for greater attention to workers rights, social safety nets, and the role of governments and businesses in ensuring fair treatment and better opportunities for economically vulnerable individuals. In discussions about fair wages, we must consider the broader socioeconomic context and work towards addressing the root causes of inequality and exploitation in the labor market. By doing so, we can foster an environment where all workers are treated fairly and have the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes. There is no rush. > Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. Well, sure. The world certainly isn't static. What is fair can change over time. And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier. Indeed, the workers we like to subcategorize as contractors often try to renegotiate at every turn, seeking opportunities in trying to stay current with what is fair. While it can be beneficial, the growth in what is fair has to exceed what is given up to navigate the inefficiencies, which often doesn't happen. We'd all be contractors if it was always a better deal. Usually the worker is better off when the agreement is long-standing. > For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? If so, certainly. Everyone is different. Similarly, I expect your greed, as you call it, prevents you from paying Ferrari prices for a Chevy Trax as well. After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear? On the flip side, you should be terribly afraid of hiring someone like a doctor to sew handbags. You want to see that they are tossed aside so that they can work as a doctor instead. They and all the rest of humanity is better off when you toss them aside. This is why they must carry a much scarier price.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier. Yes, long standing agreements can provide stability for both workers and employers. However, the ability to renegotiate and advocate for fair wages periodically is essential, especially in dynamic economic environments where factors like inflation, cost of living, and company profits may change over time. Workers seeking better conditions and wages is not an unreasonable expectation, as their contributions contribute to a company's growth and success. > While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? The point is not about devaluing individuals or considering certain people as worth less than others. It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions. > After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear? It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation. The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society. People should not be devalued or discarded based on their circumstances, but rather, they should be provided with opportunities and support to enhance their skills and contribute meaningfully to the workforce. The goal is to ensure that all individuals have access to fair opportunities and can be compensated appropriately for their work, regardless of their background or circumstances. Empowering workers to improve their skills and capabilities benefits not only them but also society as a whole. By promoting fairness and addressing economic disparities, we can create a more inclusive and equitable labor market that benefits everyone.

lossolo 3y ago

Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes. I understand your perspective, but it's important to clarify some points: > You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn-out discussion. While understanding the current state is crucial, meaningful change often requires open and constructive discussions to explore various perspectives and potential solutions. Engaging in dialogue allows us to gain insights from different viewpoints and fosters a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. > Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding. Advocating for positive change can also involve presenting well-considered ideas and supporting them with evidence and reasoning. Engaging in open discussions allows us to better comprehend the underlying issues and work towards consensus on positive improvements for all parties involved. > What is fair is established when two exchanging parties have reached an agreement on what they both consider an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement, then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked. Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. It involves ongoing relationships between employers and employees. While formal agreements are crucial, there is also a moral and ethical dimension to consider in how workers are treated over time, especially in light of the company's profits and growth. There is important additional context that needs to be considered when discussing fair exchanges in the labor market. In many cases, especially in poor countries or among economically vulnerable individuals, the concept of "equal exchange of value" might not be applicable in the traditional sense. For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. When individuals are in desperate need of employment to survive, they might accept any job opportunity presented to them, even if the compensation is not sufficient. In such cases, the power dynamics between employers and employees are significantly skewed, making it challenging for workers to demand fair wages. This imbalance can lead to underpayment and exploitation, and it may not be a result of an equal and voluntary agreement between the parties. Recognizing this context is essential to understanding the complexity of labor issues and the intrinsic link between unfairness and debt that you mentioned earlier. It highlights the need for greater attention to workers rights, social safety nets, and the role of governments and businesses in ensuring fair treatment and better opportunities for economically vulnerable individuals. In discussions about fair wages, we must consider the broader socioeconomic context and work towards addressing the root causes of inequality and exploitation in the labor market. By doing so, we can foster an environment where all workers are treated fairly and have the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

randomdata 3y ago
> Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes. There is no rush. > Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. Well, sure. The world certainly isn't static. What is fair can change over time. And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier. Indeed, the workers we like to subcategorize as contractors often try to renegotiate at every turn, seeking opportunities in trying to stay current with what is fair. While it can be beneficial, the growth in what is fair has to exceed what is given up to navigate the inefficiencies, which often doesn't happen. We'd all be contractors if it was always a better deal. Usually the worker is better off when the agreement is long-standing. > For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? If so, certainly. Everyone is different. Similarly, I expect your greed, as you call it, prevents you from paying Ferrari prices for a Chevy Trax as well. After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear? On the flip side, you should be terribly afraid of hiring someone like a doctor to sew handbags. You want to see that they are tossed aside so that they can work as a doctor instead. They and all the rest of humanity is better off when you toss them aside. This is why they must carry a much scarier price.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier. Yes, long standing agreements can provide stability for both workers and employers. However, the ability to renegotiate and advocate for fair wages periodically is essential, especially in dynamic economic environments where factors like inflation, cost of living, and company profits may change over time. Workers seeking better conditions and wages is not an unreasonable expectation, as their contributions contribute to a company's growth and success. > While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? The point is not about devaluing individuals or considering certain people as worth less than others. It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions. > After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear? It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation. The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society. People should not be devalued or discarded based on their circumstances, but rather, they should be provided with opportunities and support to enhance their skills and contribute meaningfully to the workforce. The goal is to ensure that all individuals have access to fair opportunities and can be compensated appropriately for their work, regardless of their background or circumstances. Empowering workers to improve their skills and capabilities benefits not only them but also society as a whole. By promoting fairness and addressing economic disparities, we can create a more inclusive and equitable labor market that benefits everyone.