4 ms·

Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything else? You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should sell

Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything else? You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should selling your labor be different? You don't feel immoral buying bananas as cheaply as possible. Why should purchasing labor be different? I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely trying to think through these questions.

Tarrosion 13y ago
I disagree that I don't feel immoral when trying to optimize my financial situation when selling cars and buying vehicles. First, a silly hypothetical that at least shows that when selling a car, I care about something other than price. Option 1: sell my car to a single parent trying to support a family for $5k. This parent's old vehicle was destroyed in a wreck (not their fault) and they need a way to get to work. Option 2: sell my car to an eclectic billionaire whose hobby is running over little cars in his monster truck. This billionaire is offering $5k + $.01 Almost certainly I will take option 1 despite the lower payout, and I suspect almost all of us would. When the difference between payouts is large enough - and that value will vary depending on the person - we will take the higher payout. When buying food, especially meat, I absolutely do feel immoral sometimes. E.g. if I purchase low cost beef, with high probability I am supporting an agricultural organization which contributes to negative externalities. For example, many animal feeding operations create waste which harms the environment (and by extension many individuals), but this harm may not be fully reflected in the price. It's not at all obvious to me what this means for buying and selling labor. For example, perhaps I'm an employer and I have a job opening for a full time position which pays well below a living wage, and further assume that somebody voluntarily fills that position. On the one hand, I feel bad that I'm paying my employee well below a living wage. I wonder about their happiness and health and that of their family, and this keeps me up at night. On the other hand, I believe that the employee would not have voluntarily taken this job unless they believed that the exchange of time for money was strictly beneficial to them. So every night I fall asleep content in the knowledge that I have improved someone's life...
nicholas73 13y ago
I don't believe it should be different, and so far no better way of pricing has been found than a free market. However a completely separate issue is inequality. This is important to the winners as well, as it provides a measure of stability to the system. What governments (or unions for that matter) should not do is impose new labor laws on businesses. This merely distorts free markets and creates burdens which might cause them to simply move elsewhere. What is needed is a basic income so people can pursue opportunities. Oh, and maybe the grubmint can be more efficient at spending money.
twistedpair 13y ago
One difference is the asymmetric information. There are hundreds of places to determine the fair value of your car. However your HR department uses every draconian policy available to keep you from knowing what your coworkers make. Until Glassdoor came along, it was very difficult to know what you're worth, and its dataset is still quite sparse. Go around and ask most people (i.e. non-tech) what they make relative to their coworkers and industry and they probably don't know. Hard to auction yourself when the numbers are secret.
daughart 13y ago
Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor laws are designed to address these additional aspects. In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  >> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative. Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker treatment laws sufficient? >> value is also determined by the cost of production In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make something and everybody wants it, its value could be millions.
  - daughart 13y ago
    Value is multifaceted, but in this case it should be pretty clear. If the demand for something only exists at a price less than the cost of production, then the product will not appear on the market (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.). If something costs you zero to make, the price of the item will probably fall to zero (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.), regardless of demand. A crappy statue has multiple valuations, one of which is the cost of production (in addition to use value, exchange value, market value, labor value, etc.). Treating labor as a commodity is by definition dehumanizing. Dehumanization “entails a perception of other people as nonhumans — as statistics, commodities, or interchangeable pieces in a vast ‘numbers game’. Its predominant emotional tone is that of indifference ... together with a sense of noninvolvement in the actual or foreseeable vicissitudes of others” (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl 1971, 105-6). Even in cases of slavery, the slave's labor is not what is actually considered the commodity. Commodification of labor has lead to real declines in the US and abroad in terms of worker quality of life, wage stability, worker freedom, power relations, worker skills, and democratic involvement.

Tarrosion 13y ago

I disagree that I don't feel immoral when trying to optimize my financial situation when selling cars and buying vehicles. First, a silly hypothetical that at least shows that when selling a car, I care about something other than price. Option 1: sell my car to a single parent trying to support a family for $5k. This parent's old vehicle was destroyed in a wreck (not their fault) and they need a way to get to work. Option 2: sell my car to an eclectic billionaire whose hobby is running over little cars in his monster truck. This billionaire is offering $5k + $.01 Almost certainly I will take option 1 despite the lower payout, and I suspect almost all of us would. When the difference between payouts is large enough - and that value will vary depending on the person - we will take the higher payout. When buying food, especially meat, I absolutely do feel immoral sometimes. E.g. if I purchase low cost beef, with high probability I am supporting an agricultural organization which contributes to negative externalities. For example, many animal feeding operations create waste which harms the environment (and by extension many individuals), but this harm may not be fully reflected in the price. It's not at all obvious to me what this means for buying and selling labor. For example, perhaps I'm an employer and I have a job opening for a full time position which pays well below a living wage, and further assume that somebody voluntarily fills that position. On the one hand, I feel bad that I'm paying my employee well below a living wage. I wonder about their happiness and health and that of their family, and this keeps me up at night. On the other hand, I believe that the employee would not have voluntarily taken this job unless they believed that the exchange of time for money was strictly beneficial to them. So every night I fall asleep content in the knowledge that I have improved someone's life...

nicholas73 13y ago

I don't believe it should be different, and so far no better way of pricing has been found than a free market. However a completely separate issue is inequality. This is important to the winners as well, as it provides a measure of stability to the system. What governments (or unions for that matter) should not do is impose new labor laws on businesses. This merely distorts free markets and creates burdens which might cause them to simply move elsewhere. What is needed is a basic income so people can pursue opportunities. Oh, and maybe the grubmint can be more efficient at spending money.

twistedpair 13y ago

One difference is the asymmetric information. There are hundreds of places to determine the fair value of your car. However your HR department uses every draconian policy available to keep you from knowing what your coworkers make. Until Glassdoor came along, it was very difficult to know what you're worth, and its dataset is still quite sparse. Go around and ask most people (i.e. non-tech) what they make relative to their coworkers and industry and they probably don't know. Hard to auction yourself when the numbers are secret.

daughart 13y ago

Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor laws are designed to address these additional aspects. In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.

nathan_long 13y ago
>> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative. Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker treatment laws sufficient? >> value is also determined by the cost of production In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make something and everybody wants it, its value could be millions.
- daughart 13y ago
  Value is multifaceted, but in this case it should be pretty clear. If the demand for something only exists at a price less than the cost of production, then the product will not appear on the market (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.). If something costs you zero to make, the price of the item will probably fall to zero (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.), regardless of demand. A crappy statue has multiple valuations, one of which is the cost of production (in addition to use value, exchange value, market value, labor value, etc.). Treating labor as a commodity is by definition dehumanizing. Dehumanization “entails a perception of other people as nonhumans — as statistics, commodities, or interchangeable pieces in a vast ‘numbers game’. Its predominant emotional tone is that of indifference ... together with a sense of noninvolvement in the actual or foreseeable vicissitudes of others” (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl 1971, 105-6). Even in cases of slavery, the slave's labor is not what is actually considered the commodity. Commodification of labor has lead to real declines in the US and abroad in terms of worker quality of life, wage stability, worker freedom, power relations, worker skills, and democratic involvement.